Between Tradition and Modernity Sergei Vasilenko and His … · 2014-03-06 · Between Tradition...

Between Tradition and Modernity

Sergei Vasilenko and His Unknown Works for Viola and Piano

By Elena Artamonova

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD in Performance Practice

Department of Music, Goldsmiths College

University of London

Volume 1

Date: 12 January, 2014

2

Signed Declaration

I, Elena Artamonova, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is

entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly

stated.

Signed: Elena Artamonova

Date: 12 January, 2014

3

Acknowledgements

This thesis would have not been possible without the help and support of many

people.

First and foremost, I am indebted to my research supervisor, Professor

Alexander Ivashkin, whose thorough guidance and continuous professional and

moral support provided inimitable opportunities for my study. Without his

exceptional proficiency and advice this project would have never materialised in this

form.

I am very grateful for practical guidance of Professors Tabea Zimmermann

(Hanns Eisler Hochschule fűr Musik, Berlin) and Nobuko Imai (Geneva

Conservatoire), who openly shared their unique expertise in solo viola performance.

I am obliged to the pianist Nicholas Walker (Royal Academy of Music,

London), who has collaborated with me on the CD recording ‘Sergei Vasilenko:

Complete Music for Viola and Piano. First Complete Recording’ and our numerous

concert performances, and also helped to interpret and decipher the handwritten

manuscripts of the musical scores that I was fortunate to find during the course of

this research.

I am thankful to the music publisher of the Toccata Classics, Martin

Anderson, for his commission and collaboration in the production of the CD

recording ‘Sergei Vasilenko’ mentioned above.

I owe a special thanks to the staff of the archives and libraries in Moscow,

Klin, London, New York and Washington, DC: RGALI, the Glinka Museum of

4

Musical Culture, Tchaikovskii House-Museum, the Composer’s Union of the

Russian Federation, the Russian State National Library, the British Library, the

Library of the London School of Economics and Political Science, Goldsmiths

Library and Special Collections, the New York Public Library and the Library of

Congress that greatly contributed to the formation of this thesis by providing access

to invaluable published and unpublished archival material for this research.

I would like to express thanks to the Music Department and Research

Committee at Goldsmiths College that generously supported me on my research

trips to Russia, the experience of which has been vital to this project.

Over the course of this research I have had the opportunity to meet, interview

and exchange views with the leading contemporary composers, musicologists and

performers, to whom I am grateful. Among them are my former Professor of the

Viola at the Moscow Conservatoire Iurii Bashmet, composers Grigorii Frid (1915-

2012) and Aleksandr Raskatov, Professors of the Moscow Conservatoire Galima

Aminova and Inna Barsova, the editor of the Journal of the American Viola Society,

David M. Bynog (Dallas, TX), musicologists Dr Marina Rakhmanova (Russian

State Institute of Art Studies), Dr Pauline Fairclough (Bristol University), Evgeniia

Stoklitskaia (Gnesin Music Academy), Dr George Kennaway (University of Leeds),

Dr Patrick Zuk (University of Durham) and Elizabeth Wilson (Italy), Professors

Liudmila Kovnatskaia (St Petersburg Conservatoire), Larry Sitsky (Australian

National University) and Robin Stowell (Cardiff University), and many others.

Another important source of support for me have been my friends and

especially Naomi Young, who has guided me thorough the specifics of English

linguistics.

5

Above all thanks to my family, my sister, Irina Walters, for her advice on

musical analysis, and to my parents (my mother posthumously), whose

encouragement and devotion has driven me through all the challenges of this

remarkable journey. This thesis is as much your accomplishment as it is mine.

6

Relation between the written component and the recital programme

The research objective of this written component and the final recital is to assess the

contribution of Sergei Vasilenko to the development of the viola solo repertoire in

the twentieth century. The recital programme brings together the viola compositions

of Vasilenko and also of Grechaninov and Roslavets, who were not only connected

in their compositional and teaching activities but were influential for each other. The

choice of the viola and compositional elements in their previously unknown and

little-known works illustrate the line of succession passed from the older to the

younger generation of Russian composers, who skilfully elaborated and transformed

their language.

The two works of Vasilenko are included in the recital as they represent him

as a master of composition and instrumentation with a diversity of stylistic and

instrumental approaches, harmonic and rhythmic language, an exquisite palette of

sound colour and a considered approach to the form, articulations and dynamics.

The unknown and unpublished sonata for viola (or clarinet) and piano op. 161 of

Grechaninov is a fine illustration of the musical rhetoric that made an impact on

Vasilenko, including his appreciation of Russian songs that contributed to the

emphasis on the melodic outline in his works. Vasilenko’s interest in the modern

trends of the time and experimentation with a one-movement sonata structure are

evident in the sonata for viola and piano, 1926, of his student Roslavets, who

followed in the steps of his Professor but broadly used his own compositional

idioms. These characteristics closely link these composers and their viola

compositions that represent the general rise of the viola as a solo instrument in

Russia in the first half of the twentieth century. These works demonstrate the viola

7

with a depth of musical intimacy and expression combined with a virtuosic technical

potential, thus putting it on a par with the violin.

8

Programme of the Final Recital

Aleksandr Grechaninov (1864-1956),

Sonata for viola (or clarinet) and piano, op. 161, 1940

1. Allegro. 2. Canzona. 3. Vivace

Nikolai Roslavets (1881-1944), Sonata for viola and piano, 1926

Allegretto moderato – Allegro vivace – Tempo I – Molto vivace

Interval

Sergei Vasilenko (1872-1956), Sonata for viola and piano, op. 46, 1923

Allegro moderato - Andante amorevole - Fughetta. Molto energico –

Tempo del commincio (Allegro moderato)

Sergei Vasilenko, Four Pieces on the Themes of Lute Music of the Sixteenth-

Seventeenth Centuries, op. 35, 1918, for viola (or cello) and piano

No. 1 Pavane, No. 2 Madonna Tenerina, No. 3 Serenade for a Lady of my Heart,

No. 4 Knights

Artists

Elena Artamonova, viola

Nicholas Walker, piano

9

Transliteration Note

The Library of Congress transliteration system for Russian with the soft sign (’) is

used in this thesis. In order to maintain consistency, even well-known names are

spelt in the same form as other Russian names. The only exception is made for the

name of Tchaikovskii, which would be hard to recognise in its correct form as

Chaikovskii. The foreign names of persons, who lived in Russia and the Soviet

Union, are spelt as transliterations from Russian; for example, the renowned music

publisher Petr Iurgenson, instead of the standard Jurgenson, and the musicologist

Teodor Miuller, instead of Theodor Muller. However, the titles of English and

American publications retain their spelling for easy of reference, for example

Skriabin is spelt in some sources as Scriabin or Skrybin.

Both a transliterated form in italics and its English translation in square

brackets are given for all Russian titles of works, organisations, archival documents

and published sources only once, when they appear in the text for the first time.

Subsequently, the recurring reference details of Russian originals remain in

footnotes in the transliterated form only and the recurring titles in the main body of

the text are spelt using English translation or abbreviation. An analogical approach

will be followed with the titles of archival funds in the footnotes. Both a

transliterated form in italics and its English translation in square brackets are given

for all foreign titles of works, archival documents and musical scores in the

Bibliography. All quotations and extracts from Russian archival sources and Russian

publications used in the text were translated by the author of this thesis, Elena

Artamonova.

10

Abbreviations

The opis’ [inventory] and edinitsa khraneniia [document indexes] of funds will be

given using the abbreviation of ‘op.’ and ‘ed. khr.’ respectively following the

standard system of archival catalogues in Russia.

11

Abstract

Sergei Vasilenko has been perceived as a conformist and inconsequential Soviet

composer in post-Soviet Russia. The recent discoveries of unpublished documents

reveal Vasilenko to be a talented musician whose search for a niche within the

culture of Soviet music forced him to keep his true musical writings secret from the

public in a drawer of his desk.

The author of this thesis was fortunate to find a number of his unknown and

unpublished compositions for viola and piano. In view of the paucity of music for

stringed instruments in Russia in the first decades of the last century, Vasilenko’s

seven compositions for viola, which are all different in style, mode and technique,

assume especial importance. The analysis of these works shows that Vasilenko

equally combined the elements of many diverse and often contradictory musical

conceptions of the time, including the Silver Age, Neoclassicism, Romanticism and

the Avant-garde. His innovative style – expanding the technical and sonorous

potential of the instrument, and the rhythmic and harmonic resources of Russian

music – launched new standards in viola performance and expanded its repertoire.

This thesis investigates the language, performing issues and the reasons for the

neglect of his viola works as well as their stylistic roots that spanned from

Vasilenko’s interest in the Baroque to Russian liturgical music.

The aim of this study is to re-evaluate the role of Vasilenko in the

enhancement of the viola as a solo instrument in the twentieth century and bring his

works to a concert platform. The analysis and discussion of these subjects rely

heavily on unpublished and little-explored materials on Vasilenko from the archives

in Moscow. This PhD submission has practical and written components that consist

12

of the written thesis, edited musical scores and the first complete recording of

Vasilenko’s compositions for viola and piano released by Toccata Classics.

13

Table of Contents

Volume 1 Title page 1

Declaration 2

Acknowledgements 3-5

Relation between the written component and the recital programme 6-7

Programme of the final recital 8

Transliteration note 9

Abbreviations 10

Abstract 11-12

Table of contents 13-18

List of Tables 19

List of Music Examples 20-23

Introduction 24-36

Chapter 1 Sergei Vasilenko and the unknown details of his

career

37-67

1.1 The unpublished biographical documents as the

most reliable up-to-date source for the

reassessment of the role of Vasilenko in Russian-

Soviet music

37-39

1.2 Vasilenko’s background and first appointments 40-43

1.3 Vasilenko’s philanthropic activities 43-47

1.4 Vasilenko’s memoirs 47-55

1.5 ‘The Golovanovshchina’ 55-59

1.6 Orchestration of the National Anthem of the USSR 59-64

14

1.7 Conclusion 65-67

Chapter 2 Published and unpublished works for viola by

Sergei Vasilenko

68-93

2.1 Vasilenko’s publications on music as a reflection of

his compositional pursuits

69-74

2.2 A complete list of published and unpublished works

for viola by Sergei Vasilenko

74-78

2.3 The stimulus for Vasilenko’s interest in the viola 79-82

2.4 Reasons for the neglect of Vasilenko’s viola works

during his lifetime

82-89

2.5 Late works of the early 1950s 90


Chapter 3 Early music arrangements for viola and piano by

Sergei Vasilenko

94-131

3.1 Interest in historical instruments 94-99

3.2 The language of Four Pieces on Themes of Lute

Music of the Sixteenth-Seventeenth Centuries,

op. 35

99-101

3.2.1 Pavane 101-103

3.2.2 Madonna Tenerina 103-104

3.2.3 Serenade for the Lady of my Heart 104-106

3.2.4 Knights 106-108

3.3 Sources of the suite Zodiakus 108-110

3.4 The language and form in the Zodiakus 110-111

15

3.4.1 Ouverture 111-112

3.4.2 Passacaille 112-114

3.4.3 Menuet 115

3.4.4 Plainte 115-117

3.4.5 Musette 117-119

3.5 Performing issues 119-120

3.5.1 Fingering and double-stops as the means of melodic

clarity

120-122

3.5.2 Timbre contrasts and the upper register 122-125

3.5.3 Execution of harmonics and pizzicato techniques 125-128


Chapter 4 Sergei Vasilenko. Sonata for Viola and Piano,

op. 46

132-174

4.1 Language (harmony) 134

4.1.1 The first section 134-139

4.1.2 The second section 140-142

4.1.3 The third section 142-144

4.1.4 The fourth section 144-150

4.2 Language (meter and rhythm) 150-152

4.3 Structure (textures and forms) 153-163

4.4 Performing issues 163

4.4.1 Fingering 164-166

4.4.2 Bowing as the means of articulation 166-168

16

4.4.3 Upper positions and the search for a special timbre

quality

168-172


Chapter 5 Stylistic issues in Vasilenko’s viola compositions 175-220

5.1 Formation of musical principles 175-177

5.2 Old Believers’ practices and chants and their role in

Vasilenko’s musical expression

177-194

5.3 Orientalism 195-200

5.4 Song and counterpoint: the influence of Glinka and

Taneev

200-205

5.5 The influence of the French Impressionists on

Vasilenko’s language

205-207

5.6 Symbolism 207-209

5.7 The impact of colour in Vasilenko’s musical

perception

209-212

5.8 Conclusion of the thesis. Performance issues 212-215

5.9 Vasilenko’s legacy 215-220

Bibliography 221-285

Appendix 1 The concert programmes of selected recitals of the

author of this thesis, Elena Artamonova, viola

286-314

Appendix 2 Up-to-date classified list of compositions by Sergei

Vasilenko

315-367

Appendix 3 A brief review of the language of the pieces of the

late 1950s

368-372

17

Appendix 4 The sectional division of bars marked in blue and

red pencils by Sergei Vasilenko in the manuscript of

his Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46

373

Appendix 4a The division of bars according to the

‘metrotektonizm’ method of Georgii Konius in

Sergei Vasilenko’s Sonata for Viola and Piano,

op. 46, first section

374

Appendix 5 The text and translations of the romance The

Singing Maiden/The Girl Sang in the Church Choir

375-378

Volume 2 Title Page. Edited musical scores 1

Oriental Dance. Viola part 2-10

Oriental Dance. Piano score 11-36

Four Pieces. 1. Prelude. Viola part 37-38

Four Pieces. 2. Etude. Viola part 39-40

Four Pieces. 3. Legend. Viola part 41-43

Four Pieces. 4. Scherzo. Viola part 44-47

Four Pieces. 1. Prelude. Piano score 48-51

Four Pieces. 2. Etude. Piano score 52-58

Four Pieces. 3. Legend. Piano score 59-69

Four Pieces. 4. Scherzo. Piano score 70-85

Sleeping River. Viola part 86-88

Sleeping River. Piano score 89-96

Lullaby. Viola part 97-100

Lullaby. Piano score 101-110

18

Zodiakus I.A.S. 1. Ouverture. Viola part 111-113

Zodiakus I.A.S. 2. Passacaille. Viola part 114-115

Zodiakus I.A.S. 3. Menuet. Viola part 116-117

Zodiakus I.A.S. 4. Plainte. Viola part 118-119

Zodiakus I.A.S. 5. Musette. Viola part 120-121

Zodiakus I.A.S. 1. Ouverture. Piano score 122-128

Zodiakus I.A.S. 2. Passacaille. Piano score 129-134

Zodiakus I.A.S. 3. Menuet. Piano score 135-138

Zodiakus I.A.S. 4. Plainte. Piano score 139-144

Zodiakus I.A.S. 5. Musette. Piano score 145-149

Sergei Vasilenko. Complete Music for Viola and Piano. First Complete Recording.

Elena Artamonova, viola, and Nicholas Walker, piano. Toccata Classics, TOCC 0127,

compact disc.

19

List of Tables

2.2 The list of viola compositions by Sergei Vasilenko with

the details of their manuscripts and publications 75-78

3.2.1 Sectional division with bar numbers and keys in the

Pavane 101-102


Madonna Tenerina 103-104

3.2.3

Sectional division with bar numbers and keys in the

Serenade for the Lady of my Heart 105


Knights 107

3.4.2 Sectional division with bar numbers, dynamics and keys

in the Passacaille 113

3.4.4 Sectional division with bar numbers, dynamics and keys

in the Plainte 116


Musette 118

4 Sectional division with bar numbers and keys in the

Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46

133

4.1.1a

Sectional division with bar numbers, metre and keys in

the First section/Exposition of the Sonata, op. 46

135-137

4.1.1b Sectional division with bar numbers, metre and keys in

the First section/Development of the Sonata, op. 46

138-139

4.1.2

Sectional division with bar numbers, metre and keys in

the Second section of the Sonata, op. 46

141

4.1.3 Sectional division with bar numbers, metre and keys in

the Third section of the Sonata, op. 46

143-144

4.1.4 Sectional division with bar numbers, metre and keys in

the Fourth section of the Sonata, op. 46

145-146

20

List of Music Examples1

3.5.1 Vasilenko, Knights, fragment, Piu mosso, bars 101-107

(Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo

and Wien, New York: Universal Edition, 1932), 2.

Reproduced by permission of Universal Edition.

122

3.5.2 Vasilenko, Madonna Tenerina, fragment, Poco piu

mosso/a tempo, bars 43-46 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe

muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo and Wien, New York:

Universal Edition, 1932), 2. Reproduced by permission

of Universal Edition.

124

3.5.3a Vasilenko, Serenade for the Lady of my Heart,

fragment, Piu mosso. Scherzando, bars 63-67 (Moscow:

Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo and Wien,

New York: Universal Edition, 1932), 2. Reproduced by

permission of Universal Edition.

125-126

3.5.3b Vasilenko, Serenade for the Lady of my Heart,

fragment, Meno mosso, bars 84-88 (Moscow:

Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo and Wien,

New York: Universal Edition, 1932), 2. Reproduced by


126

3.5.3c Vasilenko, Madonna Tenerina, fragment, bars 60-67

(Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo

and Wien, New York: Universal Edition, 1932), 2.

Reproduced by permission of Universal Edition.

127

4.1.4 Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,

fragment, Fourth section/Coda, bars 477-479 (Moscow:

Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1925), 32.

Reproduced by permission of the Library of the Union

of Composers of the Russian Federation, Moscow.

150

1 Please note that the quality of the scans of these music examples depended on the present

condition of their original publications.

21

4.3a Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,

fragment, First section, bars 28-31 (Moscow:




156

4.3b Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,

fragment, First section/Development, bars 192-195

(Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo,

1925), 15. Reproduced by permission of the Library of

the Union of Composers of the Russian Federation,

Moscow.

156-157

4.3c Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,

fragment, Third section, bars 345-349 (Moscow:

Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1925), 22-

23. Reproduced by permission of the Library of the

Union of Composers of the Russian Federation,

Moscow.

157-158

4.3d Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,

fragment, Fourth section, bars 455-457 (Moscow:

Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1925), 30-

31. Reproduced by permission of the Library of the

Union of Composers of the Russian Federation,

Moscow.

158

4.3e Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,





158-159

4.3f Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,

fragment, First section/Exposition, bars 110-119




159-160

22

Moscow.

4.3g Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,





160

4.4.2a Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,

fragment, Third section, bars 326-331 (Moscow:




166-167

4.4.2b Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,

fragment, First section, Cadenza, bars 200-205




Moscow.

167-168

4.4.3a Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,

fragment, First section/Exposition, bars 124-128




Moscow.

169

4.4.3b Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46,

fragment, Fourth section, Coda, bars 499-503 (Moscow:




170

5.2a Vasilenko, Skazanie o velikom grade Kitezhe i tikhom

ozere Svetoiare, op. 5, fragment, Maestoso, bars 1-4:

Sergei Vasilenko, Vstuplenie i ariia gusliara. Skazanie o

velikom grade Kitezhe i tikhom ozere Svetoiare, op. 5

[The Introduction and Aria of a Gusli Player. The

180

23

Legend of the Great City of Kitezh and the Quiet Lake

Svetoyar] (Moscow, Leipzig: Jurgenson, 1902), 3.

Reproduced by permission of the British Library,

London.

5.2b Bog Gospod’. The original Old Believers znamennyi

tune no. 7: Fond znamennykh pesnopenii [Fund of

Znamennyi Chants]. http://znamen.ru

180-181

5.2c Vasilenko, Madonna Tenerina, fragment, Andante

misterioso, bars 1-11 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe

muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo and Wien, New York:

Universal Edition, 1932), 2. Reproduced by permission

of Universal Edition.

185

5.2d Vasilenko, Vir’, fragment, Moderato, bars 7-15: Sergei

Vasilenko, Dve poemy dlia basa s orkestrom, op. 6.

Perelozhenie dlia basa s fortepiano. Vir’, slova Ivana

Bunina. Vdova, slova Iakova Polonskogo [Two Poems

for Bass with Orchestra, op. 6. Arrangement for Bass

and Piano. ‘Vir’ after Ivan Bunin. ‘Widow’ after Iakov

Polonskii] (Moscow, Leipzig: Jurgenson, 1905), 3.

Reproduced by permission of the British Library,

London.

188-189

5.2e Vasilenko, Skazanie o velikom grade Kitezhe i tikhom

ozere Svetoiare, op. 5, fragment, Maestoso, bars 25-34:

Sergei Vasilenko, Vstuplenie i ariia gusliara. Skazanie o

velikom grade Kitezhe i tikhom ozere Svetoiare, op. 5

(Moscow, Leipzig: Jurgenson, 1902), 3. Reproduced by

permission of the British Library, London.

189

5.2f Vasilenko, Vir’, fragment, Piu lento, bars 29-32: Sergei


Perelozhenie dlia basa s fortepiano. Vir’, slova Ivana

Bunina. Vdova, slova Iakova Polonskogo (Moscow,

Leipzig: Jurgenson, 1905), 4. Reproduced by permission

of the British Library, London.

190

http://znamen.ru/

24

Introduction

The aim of this study is to re-evaluate the role of Sergei Vasilenko in the

enhancement of the viola as a solo instrument in the twentieth century and bring his

works to a concert platform. This PhD submission has practical and written

components that consist of the written thesis, edited musical scores and the first

complete recording of Vasilenko’s compositions for viola and piano. The author of

this thesis was privileged to work with Vasilenko’s archives, research his early

publications in libraries in London and Moscow and was fortunate to find a number

of his unknown viola works. This research work took place in Moscow at the

archives of the Russian State Archive for Literature and Art (RGALI), the Glinka

National Museum Consortium of Musical Culture (GNMCMC, the former Glinka

State Museum of Musical Culture), the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political

History (RGASPI), the State National Library, the Library of the Union of

Composers of the Russian Federation, the Library of the Moscow Conservatoire, the

Tchaikovskii State House-Museum in Klin (GDMC), Goldsmiths Library and

Special Collections, the Library of the London School of Economics and Political

Science (LSE), and the British Library in London in April 2008 - August 2013. The

result of this research is the first ever complete list of compositions for viola and

piano by Sergei Vasilenko, as well as the first complete recording of his viola music

performed by Elena Artamonova (viola) and Nicholas Walker (piano) on the

Toccata Classics label (TOCC 0127) released in September 2011.2 None of the

compositions are well known; some are not even included in any of the published

2 Sergei Vasilenko, “Complete Music for Viola and Piano. First Complete Recording,” Toccata

Classics, http://www.toccataclassics.com/cddetail.php?CN=TOCC0127 (accessed May 15, 2013). The

complete list of Vasilenko’s viola compositions is given in the second chapter.

http://www.toccataclassics.com/cddetail.php?CN=TOCC0127

25

catalogues of Vasilenko’s music. Only the Sonata was recorded previously, first in

the 1960s by Georgii Bezrukov (viola) and Anatolii Spivak (piano),3 and again in

2007 by Igor’ Fedotov (viola) and Leonid Vechkhaizer (piano);4 the other

compositions received their first public recognition and recordings due to this

research. The author of this thesis has also given recitals; published articles based on

her recent archival findings and presented research papers at international

musicological conferences.5

3 Melodiia CM 03687-8. The LP has no issue date, which was typical for the time, although the

coding indicates that it was produced in 1961-1969. 4 Sergei Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano op. 46, from Soviet Russian Viola Music: Kryukov,

Vasilenko, Frid, Krein, Bogdanov-Berezovsky. Igor Fedotov (viola), Gary Hammond and Leonid

Vechkhayzer (piano), Naxos 8.572247, 2007, compact disc. 5 The concert programmes of selected recitals are enclosed in Appendix 1. Research articles: 1.

Elena Artamonova, “Unknown Sergei Vasilenko and His Viola Compositions: Recent Discoveries in

Russian Archives,” Journal of the American Viola Society 1, vol. 28 (2012): 33-47. 2. Elena

Artamonova, Liner Notes, Sergei Vasilenko and the Viola, 2-11. In Sergei Vasilenko. Complete Music

for Viola and Piano, Elena Artamonova (viola) and Nicholas Walker (piano), Toccata Classics TOCC

0127, 2011, compact disc. Research presentations: 1. Elena Artamonova, “Sergei Vasilenko and the

Old Believers” (paper presented at the International Conference and Festival ‘Orthodoxy, Music,

Politics and Art in Contemporary Russia and Eastern Europe’, Goldsmiths, University of London,

March 16-17, 2013). 2. Elena Artamonova, “Sergei Vasilenko and the Viola” (lecture-recital and the

launch of the First Complete Recording of Vasilenko’s Viola Works presented at the Royal Academy

of Music, London, October 24, 2011, and at the Centre for Russian Music, Goldsmiths College,

University of London, June 14, 2011). 3. Elena Artamonova, “Unknown Sergei Vasilenko and His

Viola Compositions” (paper and the final recital of the festival presented at the International

Conference and Festival ‘Music in Russia and the Soviet Union: Reappraisal and Rediscovery’,

Durham University, July 11-14, 2011). 4. Elena Artamonova, “The Birth of Modern Viola out of the

Spirit of Russian Music. Why the Viola?” (Paper presented at the International Conference ‘Music

for Stringed Instruments: Music Archives and the Materials of Musicological Research in the

Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries’, Cardiff University, June 23-24, 2010). 5. Elena

Artamonova, “Nikolai Roslavets. A Violinist and His Dream of the Unheard World of Sounds” (paper

presented at the Centre for Russian Music, Goldsmiths College, University of London, November 17,

26

The research question regarding Sergei Vasilenko will confine itself to

evaluating the contribution of his output to the enlargement of the solo viola

repertoire at the beginning of the twentieth century. This discussion is divided into

five parts: the opening two chapters examine the political and cultural circumstances

that shaped Vasilenko’s career, his interest in the viola and the reasons for the

neglect of his published compositions that enabled Vasilenko to write for the viola

again only in the early 1950s and keep his newly written works in a drawer of his

desk. The third chapter offers an analysis of Vasilenko’s arrangements of early

music and their instrumental peculiarities. The fourth chapter is a study of

Vasilenko’s sonata for viola and piano and its performance issues. The final chapter

concludes the discussion of Vasilenko’s viola compositions with a review of their

stylistic roots and issues, the importance of understanding these for performers and

Vasilenko’s legacy. The analysis and discussion of these subjects rely heavily on

unpublished and little-explored materials on Vasilenko from the archives in

Moscow.

The reading list of existing musicological publications on Vasilenko and his

compositions in Russian and English is very limited and outdated as the latest

articles about Vasilenko in these languages were published in 1979 and 1970

respectively.6 The majority of these publications underwent severe censorship,

because they were published in the Soviet press, with only a few surviving articles

dated before 1917, when critics did release objective reviews. Thus, the bibliography

2010). 6. Elena Artamonova, “Russian Viola as a Reflection of the Traditional and Modern” (lecture-

recital presented at ‘A Study Day (M)Other Russia – Researching and Performing Russian Music’,

Centre for Russian Music, Goldsmiths College, University of London, February 14, 2009). 6 This list does not include the articles of the author of this thesis, which are listed in footnote 5.

27

on Vasilenko in Russian consists of occasional brief articles in popular and scholarly

periodicals about the premiers of Vasilenko’s new works, a monograph about the

composer written by his biographer Georgii Polianovskii that was published in 1947

and 1964, and the music guide with the list of Vasilenko’s works compiled by

Georgii Ivanov that was published in 1973.7 In addition, there were two publications

of Vasilenko’s memoirs in 1948 and 1979 in Moscow, the objectivity of which is

evaluated in detail in the first chapter of this thesis.8 There are only two articles

about Vasilenko in English with a very brief outline about his compositional style

that were written by Stanley Dale Krebs and Rena Moisenko in their books on

Soviet composers that were published in 1970 and 1949 respectively.9 Besides, the

sources of these two authors were limited to Soviet publications as they did not have

access to Soviet archival materials. For these reasons, the archival materials

supported by personal interviews and correspondence conducted by the author of

this thesis with leading contemporary scholars are vital for a thorough re-evaluation

and understanding of this composer and his music today.

7 1. Georgii Ivanov, Sergei Vasilenko. Notograficheskii spravochnik [Sergei Vasilenko. Music Guide]

(Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1973). 2. Georgii Polianovskii, Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko i ego

tvorchestvo [Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko and his Creativity] (Moscow: Muzyka, 1964). 3. Georgii

Polianovskii, Sergei Vasilenko (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1947). The full details of articles are

given in the Bibliography. 8 1. Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia [Memoirs], ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii

kompozitor, 1979). 2. Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii [Pages of Reminiscences] (Moscow:

Muzyka, 1948). 9 1. Stanley Dale Krebs, Soviet Composers and the Development of Soviet Music (London: George

Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1970). 2. Rena Moisenko, Realist Music. 25 Soviet Composers (London:

Meridian Books Ltd., 1949).

28

The full list of published and unpublished archival sources as well as sound

recordings that has been used in this thesis is given in the Bibliography. The

political atmosphere and severe censorship played a decisive role in the public

perception of Vasilenko as a loyal Soviet composer and public figure. The extended

list of unpublished archival documents and musical scores introduced in this thesis

reveal Vasilenko to be a versatile, resourceful and inspirational musician deeply

devoted to Russian culture. The limitations of Soviet ‘Socialist Realism’ and

Vasilenko’s formal compliance with the regime obliged him to conceal his true

interests and compositions from the public.10 Due to Vasilenko’s broad scope of

interests in music, art, literature and history, and their interaction in his

compositional pursuits, the published sources used for this research comprise books,

articles and periodicals that review the modern artistic, philosophical and musical

trends of his time that were influenced by the political and cultural changes in the

country. These publications range from those written by Vasilenko’s contemporaries

in the USSR and abroad to the most recent findings of twenty-first-century scholars

based on previously unknown archival materials. This approach gives one a

comprehensive overview of the issues that researchers evaluated in the past but are

now re-evaluating. Taking into account the diversity of Vasilenko’s musical

language in his compositions for the viola and the aim of this thesis to combine its

research findings with performances of the discovered compositions, the issues of

interpretation of musical texts have also been an important focus in this thesis. The

awareness of historical authenticity and meaning, modernity and spontaneity,

10 For further reference to Socialist Realism and the political restrictions of the time see the

subsection ‘Reasons for the neglect of Vasilenko’s viola works during his lifetime’ in the second

chapter.

29

instrumental refinement and clarity of expression, the interplay between the

technical and the artistic, the production of tone and the emphasis on rhythm are

vital for the analysis and performance of Vasilenko’s compositions. Therefore, a

number of entries in the Bibliography refer to issues of string performance and

contemporary interpretation.

The methodology of this thesis has been primarily based on researching

unpublished archival materials and documents, studying unpublished musical scores

and interviews with leading musicologists, performers and composers. The search of

archival collections provided access to original documents relating to Vasilenko and

the music industry in Russia in the first half of the twentieth century that have been

preserved from censorship. In addition, this access gave the author of this thesis an

opportunity to broaden the research in order to explore the archives of other Russian

composers of the early twentieth century, including Aleksandr Grechaninov, one the

first teachers of Vasilenko. The unknown and unpublished Sonata for Viola (or

clarinet) and Piano op. 161 written by Grechaninov became another special find of

this study.11 This sonata was listed as a sonata for clarinet and piano in some

monographs on Grechaninov, though Grechaninov wrote a part for the viola as well

as one for the clarinet.12 The finding of the musical manuscripts of Vasilenko and

11 Aleksandr Grechaninov, Sonata for viola (or clarinet) and piano no. 1, op.161. A microfilm of the

sonata is housed in GNMCMC, fund 22 (Grechaninov Aleksandr Tikhonovich), ed. khr. 132-133. The

manuscript is housed in the New York Public Library. 12 Further reference in: 1. Ol’ga Tompakova, Pevets russkoi temy. Aleksandr Tikhonovich

Grechaninov [The Singer of the Russian Theme. Aleksandr Tikhonovich Grechaninov] (St. Petersburg:

Kompozitor, 2007), 120. 2. Iurii Paisov, Aleksandr Grechaninov. Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo [Aleksandr

Grechaninov. Life and Work] (Moscow: Kompozitor, 2004), 555. 3. Iurii Aleksandrov, Aleksandr

Tikhonovich Grechaninov. Notograficheskii spravochnik [Aleksandr Tikhonovich Grechaninov. Music

Guide] (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1978), 16.

30

Grechaninov that took place during the course of this research led to the preparation

of their performing editions. This undertaking has proved to be a challenging task as

the author of this thesis had to interpret and decipher the handwritten manuscripts of

the musical scores, some of which were almost impossible to read. Taking into

account that the majority of works for viola and piano by Vasilenko, which have

been discovered during the course of this research remain in manuscript with neither

bow markings nor the fingering essential for their performance, the author of this

thesis made editions of the Zodiakus I.A.S. Suite after Unknown Authors of the

Eighteenth Century, Oriental Dance op. 47, Sleeping River, Lullaby and the Four

Pieces for Viola and Piano that are enclosed with this thesis.

Finally, personal correspondence and interviews with leading contemporary

researchers, composers and performers have been an important additional source of

information and methodology for this study. Thus, in April 2012, the oldest living

Russian composer, Grigorii Frid, shared his memoirs on the musical life of the

Moscow Conservatoire circles in the 1930s and his personal encounters with his

teacher of instrumentation Sergei Vasilenko; Evgeniia Stoklitskaia recalled the

teaching and performance approaches of her Professor of the viola, Vadim

Borisovskii, who was the leading Russian viola soloist in the 1920s-1960s and a

dedicatee of a number of viola works written by his contemporaries, including

Sergei Vasilenko.13 Inna Barsova, Larry Sitsky and Elizabeth Wilson provided the

author of this thesis with some interesting information about research sources

relating to other distinguished Russian composers who wrote for the viola during

this period such as Nikolai Roslavets and Aleksandr Mosolov. The exchange of

13 For further information on Borisovskii see the second chapter.

31

views and information with these and other scholars, the majority of whom are listed

in the Acknowledgements, and the extensive work at the archives of the author of

this thesis has helped to focus this study on the development of the viola as a solo

instrument in Russia specifically in the period of the first half of the twentieth

century and on the viola works written by Sergei Vasilenko rather than on those by

Mosolov and Roslavets. The preference and need for this particular research topic in

musicology and viola performance is explained below.

The start of the transformation of the viola from a neglected orchestral

instrument in Russia occurred soon after the Socialist Revolution of 1917 and the

following Civil War that resulted in rapid political and social changes, which

consequently influenced the aesthetic and musical conceptions of the time. The

particular musical languages of Mosolov, Roslavets and Vasilenko are most

interesting for the evaluation of the enhancement of the viola as a solo instrument in

Russia during this period. Roslavets and Mosolov were composers with very modern

and often radical ideas that they implemented in their compositions. Vasilenko, on

the contrary, equally combined the elements of many diverse and often contradictory

musical conceptions of the time, including the Silver Age,14 Neoclassicism,

Romanticism and the Avant-garde. The Avant-garde movement took its first

inspiration from the individualism of Russian Symbolist composers of the Silver

14 The term Silver Age is applied to a number of artistic movements in the first two decades of the

twentieth century, which announced the idea of transforming the world through art, and in which

only the individuality of an artist seemed to be accounted artistic merit. The movements were

unified by irrationalism, mysticism, eccentricity, and the eradication of logic in favour of intuition

and ‘cosmic consciousness’. This term is attributed to a Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdiaev (1874-

1948), though it was recognised by scholars only in the 1960s. More information on the Silver Age

may be found in the subsection ‘Symbolism’ in the fifth chapter.

32

Age, Skriabin in particular.15 However, the Avant-garde moved further, with

extreme experimentation in form, rhythm and language, including synthetic

chords,16 twelve-tone rows and free atonality.17 The radical innovations and new

trends of the Avant-garde were led among others by the young Roslavets and

Mosolov from the 1890s until 1932, when the movement clashed with the state

decree ‘O perestroike literaturno-khudozhestvennykh organizatsii’ [On the

15 A discussion of the influence of Skriabin may be found in the fourth and fifth chapters. 16 A Sintet-akkord [Synthetic Chord] is the central six-tone harmony of Roslavets’s harmonic

invention called the ‘Novaia sistema organizatsii zvukov’ [New System of Organised Sounds], which

he introduced in detail in his unpublished lecture with the same title at the Musical-Vocal Courses

named after Stravinskii in Moscow on 3 December 1926: ‘[…] A synthetic chord works as a

substitute for a tonality and exists within certain rules. […] The repositioning of this chord on a fifth

up or down employs a formula similar to Tonic-Subdominant-Dominant (T-S-D). Unfolded in the

melodic layout these three synthetic chords T-S-D give a twelve-note chromatic scale. […]’ Nikolai

Roslavets, Novaia sistema organizatsii zvukov [New System of Organised Sounds]. Housed in RGALI,

fund 2659, op. 1, ed. khr. 72, p. 16. 17 For further reference to the Avant-garde see: 1. Leonid Maksimenkov, ed., Muzyka vmesto

sumbura. Kompozitory i muzykanty v strane Sovetov, 1917-1991. Dokumenty [Music Instead of

Muddle. Composers and Musicians in the Land of the Soviets, 1917-1991. Documents] (Moscow:

Demokratiia, 2013). 2. Marina Frolova-Walker and Jonathan Walker, Music and Soviet Power, 1917-

1932 (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2012). 3. Andrei Krusanov, Russkii avangard: 1907-1932.

Istoricheskii obzor v trekh tomakh [Russian Avant-garde: 1907-1932. A Historical Review in Three

Volumes] (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2003, 2010). 4. Amy Nelson, Music for the

Revolution: Musicians and Power in Early Soviet Russia (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University

Press, 2004). 5. David Haas, Leningrad’s Modernists. Studies in Composition and Musical Thought,

1917-1932 (New York, Bern, Berlin Frankfurt am Main, Paris, Wien: Peter Lang, 1998). 6. Larry

Sitsky, Music of the Repressed Russian Avant-garde, 1900-1929 (Westport, Connecticut, London:

Greenwood Press, 1994).

33

Reconstruction of Literary and Art Organisations]18 that marked the start of the

epoch of Socialist Realism; from then on art was thoroughly controlled by the state.

The author of this thesis has undertaken thorough research into the personal

archival documents, unpublished manuscripts and lectures of Roslavets that are kept

at the Russian State Archive for Literature and Art (RGALI) and the Glinka

National Museum Consortium of Musical Culture (GNMCMC) in Moscow.19 The

viola legacy of Roslavets consists of two completed and one unfinished sonatas for

viola and piano. The completed sonatas written in 192620 and in the 1930s21

respectively were published by the Schott Music publishing house, and have been

recorded and evaluated in a few dissertations.22 The unfinished sonata of 192523 was

18 The Party Resolution of 23 April 1932 ‘On the Reconstruction of Literary and Artistic

Organisations’ liquidated existing literary-artistic organisations and established new unions with a

compulsory Communist faction that ensured the absolute control of the Party. 19 Housed in RGALI, fund 2659 (Roslavets, Nikolai Andreevich). Housed in GNMCMC, fund 373

(Roslavets, Nikolai Andreevich). This research work took place in July 2008-July 2013. 20 Nikolai Roslavets, Sonata for Viola and Piano 1926. Manuscript housed in RGALI, fund 2659, op. 1,

ed. khr. 31, pp. 1-21. 21 The precise date of the second sonata is unknown. The manuscript of this sonata that is housed in

RGALI (fund 2659, op. 1, ed. khr. 39, pp. 1-29) is undated. 22 The scores were published in: 1. Nikolai Roslavets, Sonata for Viola and Piano no. 1, 1926, ed.

Marina Lobanova (Mainz: Schott Music, ED 8177). 2. Nikolai Roslavets, Sonata for Viola and Piano

no. 2, ed. Marina Lobanova (Mainz: Schott Music, ED 8178). Sound recordings in: 1. Nikolai

Roslavets, Sonatas for Viola and Piano, from Nikolai Roslavets: Chamber Music, Piano Trio no. 3,

Sonatas for Viola and Piano no. 1-2, Piano Sonata no. 5, Cello Sonata no. 1. The Moscow Trio, Andrei

Gridtchuk (viola) and Alexander Blok (piano), Natalia Pankova (piano), Sergei Sudzilovski (cello) and

Andrei Diev (piano), Brilliant Classics 9174, 2010, compact disc. (This recording was originally

released in 1992 by Harmonia Mundi IDC 288 047. Further reference to this recording may be found

in footnote 24). 2. Nikolai Roslavets, Sonata for Viola and Piano no. 1, 1926, from Les Nouveaux

Musiciens. Ligeti: Sonate pour alto seul, Prokofiev: Roméo et Juliette, Roslavets: Sonate pour alto et

piano no. 1, Takemitsu: A Bird Came down the Walk. Lawrence Power (viola) and Simon Crawford-

Phillips (piano), Harmonia Mundi HMN 911756, 2001, compact disc. 3. Nikolai Roslavets, Sonatas for

34

completed by the composer Aleksandr Raskatov in 1988 and recorded by Iurii

Bashmet on the viola, and Mikhail Muntian on the piano.24 These undertakings,

Viola and Piano no. 1-2, from Nikolai Roslavets and Dmitrii Shostakovich: Sonatas for Viola and

Piano no. 1-2, Sonata op. 147a. Victoria Chiang (viola) and Randall Hodgkinson (piano), Centaur

CRC2450, 2000, compact disc. Selected dissertations: 1. Inessa Bazayev, “Composing with Circles,

Spirals, and Lines of Fifths: Harmony and Voice Leading in the Works of Nikolai Roslavets” (PhD diss.,

City University of New York, 2009), 1-229. 2. Mary C. Watson Harrah, “The Sonata for Viola and

Piano (1926) of Nikolai Andreyevich Roslavets: A Historical Examination, Analysis and Performer’s

Guide” (DMA diss., Arizona State University, 2005), 1-58. 3. Charles Monroe McKnight, “Nikolai

Roslavets: Music and Revolution” (PhD diss., Cornell University, 1994), 1-232. 4. Anna Ferenc,

“Investigating Russian Musical Modernism: Nikolai Roslavets and his New System of Tone

Organisation” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1993), 1-170.

23 The uncompleted manuscript of this sonata is housed in RGALI, fund 2659, op. 1, ed. khr. 30, pp.

1-2, 5-11. 24 Aleksandr Raskatov, email message to author, December 29, 2012. Iurii Bashmet, interview by the

author, London, February 10, 2012. Bashmet (b. 1953) is a former student of Vadim Borisovskii and

Fedor Druzhinin, a Russian conductor, violist and the Head of the Viola Faculty at the Moscow

Conservatoire. Bashmet is one of the leading viola soloists, who performs around the globe and is a

dedicatee of many contemporary viola compositions, including works by Shnitke [Schnittke],

Denisov, Kancheli, Tavener, Ruders and Previn. Sound recording in: Nikolai Roslavets, Sonata for

Viola and Piano, from Glinka, Roslavets, Shostakovich: Sonatas for Viola and Piano. Yuri Bashmet

(viola) and Mikhail Muntian (piano), RCA/Victor Red Seal BMG Classics, BM650, 1992, compact disc.

The score of this sonata is available on loan from the Sikorski Verlag, Hamburg, and is listed in the

catalogue as follows: Nikolai Roslawez, Sonata no. 1 (1925/1989-1990) für Viola und Klavier. The

scholar and editor of the two completed sonatas for viola and piano of 1926 and the 1930s by

Roslavets, Marina Lobanova, who titled them no. 1 and no. 2 respectively, disapproved of this

edition by Raskatov. In her opinion, this completed sonata cannot be fully attributed to Roslavets,

because Roslavets left his sonata of 1925 unfinished and its manuscript survived in the form of

inconsistent sketches. (For further details about the manuscript see footnote 23). This dispute led to

a lawsuit in Hamburg in 2009 and caused the inconsistency of titles in the recording of the sonatas

for viola and piano by Roslavets released by Brilliant Classics 9174, which is listed in footnote 22.

The sonatas of Roslavets that are titled there no. 1-2 are in fact the sonata of 1925 and the sonata

of 1926. For further details about this dispute see: Marina Lobanova, Nikolai Andreevich Roslavets i

kul’tura ego vremeni [Nikolai Andreevich Roslavets and the Culture of his Time] (Moscow: Petroglif,

2011), 19-20.

35

publications25 and recordings considerably limit the scope for further findings and

research on Roslavets within the field of his viola music.26

The manuscript of the only Sonata for Viola Solo op. 21a by Mosolov

written in the 1920s was irretrievably lost during the Soviet purges and has not yet

been found.27 Unfortunately, this sonata was never scheduled for publication and,

therefore, no other copies of this composition exist. The only other known viola

composition by Mosolov is a set of Three Lyric Pieces op. 2 for Viola and Piano

written in 1922-1923. Like the sonata, this work has never been published and the

location of the manuscript remains unknown.28 However, the author of this thesis

found evidence that this work was performed in public - but only once. A single

programme leaflet of the concert that was organised by the Association of

Contemporary Music (ACM) in Moscow on 29 October 1924 has survived and is

kept in RGALI. This concert consisted of works written by Mosolov and Vissarion 25 For further reading about Roslavets see: 1. Marina Lobanova, Nikolai Andreevich Roslavets i

kul’tura ego vremeni (Moscow: Petroglif, 2011). 2. Marina Lobanova, Nikolaj Andreevic Roslavec und

die Kultur seiner Zeit (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997). 3. Richard Taruskin, “Restoring

Comrade Roslavets,” in On Russian Music, Richard Taruskin (Berkeley and Los Angeles, California:

University of California Press, 2009), 294-298. 4. Detlef Gojowy, Neue sowjetische Musik der 20er

Jahre [New Soviet Music of the 1920s], ed. and trans. Natal’ia Vlasova (Moscow: Kompozitor, 2006),

127. 26 The author of this thesis has found a number of misprints in the Schott publication of the Sonata

for viola and piano sonata, 1926, by Roslavets that were overlooked either by its editor or publisher

and consequently performers. Regrettably, these misprints were repeated in the CD recordings of

this sonata listed in footnote 22. 27 Inna Barsova, email message to author, June 16, 2011. Inna Barsova, a musicologist and Professor

of Music Theory at the Moscow Conservatoire, has undertaken extensive research on Aleksandr

Mosolov in Russia. For further information on Mosolov’s works see: Nina Meshko, ed., Aleksandr

Vasil’evich Mosolov. Stat’i i vospominaniia [Aleksandr Mosolov. Articles and Memoirs] (Moscow:

Sovetskii kompozitor, 1986). 28 Inna Barsova, email message to author, June 16, 2011.

36

Shebalin, including the Three Lyric Pieces by Mosolov performed by Vadim

Borisovskii on the viola and Mariia Mirzoeva on the piano.29 Nevertheless, due to

the absence of the musical scores it is unfeasible to undertake a full assessment of

Mosolov’s contribution to the viola repertoire at present. The viola heritage of

Sergei Vasilenko however needs to be researched for the first time in detail as his

newly discovered compositions prove his interest in the viola throughout his

lifetime. The following chapters provide an insight into these works, their origins,

significance and performing issues.

29 Programmy kontsertov, organizovannykh Assotsiatsiei Sovremennoi Muzyki [Programme Leaflets

of Concerts Organised by the Association of Contemporary Music]. Housed in RGALI, fund 2037

(Kochetovy), op. 3, ed. khr. 63, p. 3. The organisers of the concert paid little respect to accuracy as

the titles of these pieces were printed with some spelling mistakes: Plainrte (most likely instead of

Plainte, which translates from French as ‘complaint’), Epicexion and Epoxe (most likely instead of

Epode, which was the third and final part of an ode in Ancient Greece performed by a choir). The

meaning of the second title is unknown. One may only guess that perhaps the intended word was

Epicedium, which translates from Greek as ‘funeral ode or dirge’.

37

Between tradition and modernity

Chapter One

Sergei Vasilenko and the unknown details of his career

1.1 The unpublished biographical documents as the most reliable up-to-date

source for the reassessment of the role of Vasilenko in Russian-Soviet

music

Vasilenko lived through the most rapid, dramatic and brutal political and social

changes of Russian and world history, including the First World War, the February

and Socialist Revolutions of 1917 that were followed by the Civil and Second World

Wars. These conflicts, in particular those that overturned the constitutional and civil

structure of the country, changing it from Imperial to Bolshevik Russia and then

transformed it into the Soviet state, had a major impact on the life of its citizens,

including Vasilenko. In order to survive and continue his professional activities

Vasilenko conformed to the Soviet constraints and abandoned some of his

compositional desires and aspirations, including his music for the viola, of which

more in the following chapters. Vasilenko’s roots in the Russian aristocracy, which

potentially could have had fatal consequences in the new proletarian society, and the

need to provide for the family and maintain its social status, obliged Vasilenko to

avoid unnecessary political risks. As a result of Vasilenko’s formal obedience many

38

facts about him have been either misinterpreted in publications or kept under wraps

until recently.30

For this reason, this chapter is dedicated to the unknown details of

Vasilenko’s biography, including his family background, career engagements and

published memoirs as well as some of his compositional accomplishments, which

were primarily shaped and determined by the political demands of the Soviet rule

and its state commissions. Among them was a commission to orchestrate the

National Anthem of the USSR in 1943. This fact has neither been widely publicised

nor researched, though Vasilenko prepared an in-depth article for the press that

illustrated his meeting with Stalin and the members of the Politburo, who authorised

Vasilenko’s orchestration for the national radio broadcast.31 In addition, due to the

disinformation in the Soviet press, Vasilenko’s name has been associated with the

fabricated case against the conductor Nikolai Golovanov in 1928. The archival

documents reveal Vasilenko’s faithful attitude towards Golovanov, of which more in

the separate subsection below.32

30 A detailed discussion of Vasilenko’s memoirs may be found in the separate subsection

‘Vasilenko’s memoirs’ below and a discussion of his publications in the subsection ‘Vasilenko’s

publications on music as a reflection of his compositional pursuits’ in the second chapter. Most

recent references on Vasilenko were written by the author of this thesis and are listed in the

Introduction and Bibliography of this thesis. 31 Further discussion of Vasilenko’s orchestration and his meeting with Stalin may be found in the

separate subsection ‘Orchestration of the National Anthem of the USSR’. 32 Further discussion of the Golovanov case may be found in the separate subsection ‘The

Golovanovshchina’.

39

Vasilenko has been perceived as a conformist and inconsequential Soviet

composer among his colleagues and in post-Soviet Russia.33 The recent findings of

the author of this thesis help one to comprehend Vasilenko’s motivation and efforts

to satisfy the official censorship and to compose music that illustrated and fulfilled

its socialist ideology. Moreover, the unpublished documents reveal Vasilenko to be

a decent man and a talented musician whose search for a niche within the culture of

Soviet music forced him to keep his true musical writings secret from the public in a

drawer of his desk. The analysis and discussion of these subjects rely heavily on

unpublished and little-explored materials on Vasilenko from the archives in

Moscow.34

33 The 140 Birthday Anniversary of Sergei Vasilenko in 2012 went almost unnoticed by the

authorities and the public in Russia with only a single concert organised by the conductor Stanislav

Kalinin and the Choir of the Moscow Conservatoire on 15 October 2012 at the Rakhmaninov Zal

[Hall] of the Moscow Conservatoire. The concert programme listed only some of Vasilenko’s choral

works. Further reference in: http://www.classicalforum.ru/index.php?topic=7004.0 (accessed

August 28, 2013). Further reference to the perception of Vasilenko in Soviet Russia may be found in:

Stanley Dale Krebs, “Sergei Vasilenko,” in Soviet Composers and the Development of Soviet Music

(London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1970), 82-85. 34 The personal archive of Sergei Vasilenko was donated by his family after the death of the

composer and is kept at the GNMCMC, fund 52. Vasilenko was a member of the ‘Obshchestvo

druzei’ [the Society of Friends] of the Tchaikovskii State House-Museum in Klin in the 1920s and

donated a few of his documents to its archive. (Dr. Ada Ainbinder, email message to author, January

14, 2013. Dr. Ainbinder is the Chief of the Department of Manuscript and Printing Sources of the

GDMC in Klin). The archives of RGALI and of the National Library have collections of documents,

manuscripts and publications relating to Vasilenko that belonged to the archives of his friends and

colleagues, and to state institutions. These collections are registered within different funds, which

will be indicated in this thesis.

http://www.classicalforum.ru/index.php?topic=7004.0

40

1.2 Vasilenko’s background and first appointments

Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko had a long and distinguished career as a composer,

conductor and pedagogue based in Moscow in the first half of the twentieth century.

He was born on 30 March 1872 into an aristocratic family. Vasilenko’s brief

biography can be found in various music dictionaries. However, many interesting

details about his formation and professional experiences are still confined to

Vasilenko’s unpublished personal reminiscences and documents. They were only

partly published in his memoirs in the USSR.35

Largely because of his family upbringing and wealth, Vasilenko received a

brilliant education. However, his interest in music was very unpredictable and rather

capricious in his early childhood. He started to play the piano from the age of six,

but gave it up a year later though he eventually resumed his lessons. In his early-

teens, in 1886, after two years of tuition on the clarinet, he likewise gave it up in

favour of the oboe. The turning point came in 1887, when Vasilenko began to study

music more conscientiously in private music lessons with some of the best

musicians of the time, including theory with Richard Nokh and then with Aleksandr

Grechaninov, harmony with Sergei Protopopov and composition with Georgii

Konius concurrently studying at the best private boarding gymnasium for boys

founded by Frants Kreiman in Moscow.36 Although, music making was an important

35 A detailed discussion of Vasilenko’s memoirs may be found in the subsection ‘Vasilenko’s

memoirs’. 36 Vasilenko’s archive has four ‘End of Year School Certificates’ dated 1886-1890, when Sergei was in

his fourth-seventh year groups. According to the grades and remarks on these certificates, he was

not an excellent, but a diligent pupil with good behaviour. Sergei Vasilenko, Lichnye dela [Personal

Documents]. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52 (Vasilenko, Sergei Nikiforovich), ed. khr. 972-980, pp. 1-

4.

41

part of the family life, Vasilenko’s father 37 did not consider it a suitable profession

for his son. For this reason, Vasilenko read law at Moscow University in 1891-1896

and graduated with a first class degree in forensic medicine.

Nevertheless, Vasilenko’s dedication to music grew stronger and, from 1895,

he concurrently studied composition at the Moscow Conservatoire under Sergei

Taneev and Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov and took private piano tuition from Vasilii

Safonov. In an unpublished letter dated 8 June 1895 addressed to Sergei Taneev,

Vasilenko expressed his deep gratitude for offering him a place at the Conservatoire.

Due to illness, Vasilenko missed the official admission dates and was examined at a

later date.

[...] I would love to devote all my energy and abilities to the art of music. I allow

myself to explain this to you, because I would like to emphasize the importance of

your great kindness towards me and to express my sincere appreciation. […]38

Vasilenko did indeed fulfil his aspiration and in 1901, at the age of 29,

graduated with a big gold medal and the title of a ‘Free Artist’, which paved the way

37 Nikifor Ivanovich Vasilenko (1821-1899), an amateur violinist and a keen music lover, was born in

Gorodnia, Chernigov region (Ukraine), the son of a general of the Napoleonic War of 1812, Ivan

Ivanovich Vasilenko. Nikifor Ivanovich studied philology at Kiev University, taught at a gymnasium in

the Chernigov region and then worked as a manager at wealthy country estates. In 1861, he married

Proskov’ia Alekseevna Gogoleva, native of St. Petersburg, and had apart from Sergei three older

daughters. Quoted in Vasilii Fedorov, Chernovye nabroski, vypiski iz dnevnikov [Drafts, Extracts from

Diaries]. Sergei Vasilenko. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579 (Fedorov, Vasilii Vasil’evich), op. 1, ed. khr.

22, pp. 55-56. Vasilii Fedorov (1891-1973) was a producer, theatre scholar and a friend of Sergei

Vasilenko. Among other posts, Fedorov occupied the positions of the Director of Research at the

Glinka Museum of Musical Culture in 1944 and the Director of the Museum of the Bolshoi Theatre in

1946-1957. 38 Sergei Vasilenko, Pis’ma S.I. Taneevu [Letters to S.I. Taneev]. Housed in GDMC, fund 5 (Taneev,

Sergei Ivanovich), op. 1, ed. khr. 230, p. 1.

42

for his future career in music. Safonov, the director of the Conservatoire in 1889-

1906, invited the new graduate to help as his assistant conductor at the

Conservatoire’s orchestra and opera studio. This appointment led to a series of

active professional concert engagements of Vasilenko as a conductor in Russia from

1902, some with the Private Opera Society known as the Opera Mamontov in 1903-

1904, and abroad, including with the Berlin Philharmonic in 1908-1913. These were

among the best orchestras of the time and, consequently, first-rate collaborations for

any musician. A family friend Konstantin Stanislavskii, the creator of the

internationally renowned ‘Stanislavskii’s system’ of acting, commissioned

Vasilenko to compose incidental music for a few stage productions of the

Moskovskoe Obshchestvo Iskusstva i Literatury [the Moscow Society of Art and

Literature], the forerunner of the MKHAT [the Moscow Art Theatre]. Thus, from

1902, Vasilenko was also actively engaged as a composer and gradually became a

respected authority in orchestration.

Ippolitov-Ivanov, the director of the Moscow Conservatoire in 1906-1922,

offered him a post teaching instrumentation and then a professorship of composition,

a position he occupied for almost fifty years (1906-41 and 1943-56).39 Sergei

Rakhmaninov was another contender for this post in 1906, though he never fully

devoted himself to teaching and, according to his friend Aleksandr Gol’denveizer,

39 During the period of 17.10.1941 - 05.07.1943 during the Great Patriotic War, Vasilenko resided in

Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan. He was evacuated with the family ‘for creative work of his

speciality’ as stated in the directive of the Komitet po Delam Iskusstv pri Sovete Narodnykh

Komissarov Soiuza SSR [the Arts Committee of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR]

dated 13 October 1941. Sergei Vasilenko, Sluzhebnye dokumenty [Service Documents]. Housed in

GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 981-993, p. 34.

43

did not like pedagogical work.40 Perhaps, this was the reason why Rakhmaninov’s

candidacy did not get enough votes from the members of the Khudozhestvennyi

Sovet [Arts Council] of the Conservatoire. Vasilenko, on the contrary, equally

combined his teaching, conducting and composing activities and in 1932 was justly

nominated as chair of the department of instrumentation, the position he held until

his death (1932–41 and 1943–56).41

1.3 Vasilenko’s philanthropic activities

At the time of the October Socialist Revolution, Vasilenko was a forty-five year old

composer deeply rooted in the traditions of Russian imperial culture and values.42

His respectable mission of being a living composer, who connected the traditions of

Russian music set up by Glinka, Tchaikovskii, Taneev and others with the young

Soviet musical culture did not materialise immediately. What helped him to gain 40 Aleksandr Gol’denveizer, Vospominaniia [Memoirs] (Moscow: Deka-VC, 2009), 327, 341-342.

Rakhmaninov’s failure did not pass without a trace for Vasilenko. In February 1917, Rakhmaninov

was a chairman of the jury at a competition for the best vocal composition organised by Nazarii

Raiskii. The first prize was not awarded. Vasilenko’s poem for mezzo-soprano with orchestra

Zhaloby muzy [Complaints of a Muse] after the poem with the same title by Iakov Polonskii about

the First World War did not get enough votes. Rakhmaninov abstained from voting and Nikolai

Medtner made a rather curious remark that the part of the mezzo-soprano was written too low.

Polonskii, on the contrary, highly regarded this composition. Further reference in: 1. Sergei

Vasilenko, Vospominaniia [Memoirs], ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979),

356. 2. Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant [Memoirs. Initial Version]. Housed

in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 412, pp. 44-47. 41 Vasilenko died in Moscow on 11 March 1956, leaving an extensive list of compositions, including

six operas, eleven ballets, five symphonies, concertos for balalaika, trumpet, violin, cello, harp,

clarinet, piano and French horn; chamber and instrumental music; songs, choruses, folksong

arrangements and more. The list of compositions is given in Appendix 2. 42 A detailed discussion of Vasilenko’s musical principles and his stylistic influences may be found in

the fifth chapter.

44

influence and establish himself as a committed and faithful Soviet composer?

Vasilenko’s roots in the Russian aristocracy would hardly have endeared him to the

new dispensation in Soviet Russia, though he kept very quiet about his pre-

Revolutionary standard of life as a nobleman. According to Vasilenko’s unpublished

recollections of 1940s, his family was wealthy and owned not only a house in

Moscow, but traded up a few country estates.43 However, in his personal file as an

employee and a conductor of the Bolshoi Theatre dated 14 March 1929, Vasilenko

testified that he never owned any type of property and that his father was only a

teacher in a gymnasium.44 Such fabrications and an officially verified social

allegiance were vital for one’s physical existence at the time. Even in 1947, thirty

years after the Socialist Revolution, Vasilenko’s biographer, Georgii Polianovskii,

described Vasilenko’s family as a typical representative of a low class intelligentsia

avoiding any words in connection with the upper class.45 In an article commissioned

by the Arts Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated 28 March

1953, Vasilenko allowed himself to reveal only that his parents were wealthy and his

father taught mathematics.46

43 Quoted in Vasilii Fedorov, Chernovye nabroski, vypiski iz dnevnikov. Sergei Vasilenko. Housed in

RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 22, pp. 55-56. 44 Gosudarstvennyi Akademicheskii Bol’shoi Teatr [The State Academic Bolshoi Theatre], Sergei

Vasilenko. Lichnoe delo [Sergei Vasilenko. Personal File]. Housed in RGALI, fund 648

(Gosudarstvennyi Ordena Lenina Akademicheskii Bol’shoi Teatr), op. 1, ed. khr. 469, pp. 18-19. This

long standard form that consisted of 29 questions was stamped and authorised by the Secretariat of

the Moscow Conservatoire. 45 Georgii Polianovskii, Sergei Vasilenko (Moscow, Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1947), 7. 46 Sergei Vasilenko, Al’bom dokumentov [Album with Documents]. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed.

khr. 788, p. 167.

45

Nevertheless, Vasilenko justly gained a reputation as a compassionate

supporter of poor communities well before the Revolution and his philanthropy also

helped him to fall on the right side of the authorities. Thus, in 1904, Vasilenko sold

the land of the estate called Tsarevka47 near the town of Elets that he inherited from

his father to his peasants for an affordable price and provided them with a lengthy

credit despite the petitions and delegations of other landowners. As a landowner,

Vasilenko had to attend the meetings of the elective district council. In his view, the

attitude of local aristocrats to peasants was similar to the exploitation of slaves,

which Vasilenko could neither accept nor challenge.

In 1907-1917 he organised a series of the ‘Istoricheskie Obshchedostupnye

Kontserty’ [Historic Public Concerts, commonly called the Historic Concerts] in

Moscow that popularised and introduced classical music in chronological sequence

among the financially insecure and deprived audiences of students, teachers and

workers. The Chief of the Department for Protecting the Public Security and Order48

in Moscow was anxious about such a large number of workers attending these

concerts as he saw a potential political danger in educating the lower classes. After

the second concert on 6 December 1907, Vasilenko was requested to come to the

Moscow police headquarters and had to agree to be accompanied by an undercover

agent, who was to monitor that these concert activities lest they provoke a

47 Administration of the Lipetsk region, “Dolgorukov,” Social Sphere,

http://www.dolgorukovo.org/soczialnaya-sfera/kultura (accessed September 26, 2012). Today, the

land of this former estate is a part of a small village, which according to the government statistic of

2011 has only 19 residents. It belongs to the municipal district Dolgorukov of the Lipetsk region, in

which one of the local music schools is named after Sergei Vasilenko. 48 It was a secret police force in tsarist Russia commonly abbreviated as Okhranka that in 1880

replaced the Third Section of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery.

http://www.dolgorukovo.org/

46

revolutionary uprising.49

The critics described Vasilenko’s educational mission as the ‘people’s’

university of the world history of music’,50 which certainly won popularity for its

organiser among the general public. From 1909, Vasilenko undertook a few trips to

Europe, where he lived for two to three months in search for unusual or

representative repertoire for these concerts.51 Vasilenko’s financial independence as

a wealthy person, who hardly ever experienced any shortage of financial resources,52

allowed him to travel abroad extensively and continually supported his benevolent

mission and concert projects, but only during the tsarist reign.

49 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii [Pages of Reminiscences] (Moscow, Leningrad:

Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1948), 202. 50 Nikolai Kashkin, “Kontserty [Concerts],” Russkie vedomosti [Russian Gazette] 42, February 17,

1909. Concert life was booming in Moscow, but the tickets were very expensive reaching up to 50

roubles, which was unaffordable for many as it was equivalent to double the standard monthly

income of a worker. For the first time such spectators had an opportunity to listen to a number of

leading performers of the time, among them were Henri Casadesus, Arthur Nikisch, Konstantin

Igumnov, Aleksandr Gol’denveizer and Wanda Landowska, who often waived their fees in order to

keep the ticket price very low starting from only one rouble 40 kopeks for an annual series of ten

concerts. The Russian Music Society (RMO) provided free of charge hire of the Bolshoi Zal [Big Hall]

of the Moscow Conservatoire. Each concert had printed programmes, complimentary provided to

the audience, and a pre-concert talk given by the leading music critic Iulii Engel’s. Sergei Vasilenko,

Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo 1948), 26. 51 Further discussion of these series of concerts and their programmes may be found in the third

chapter. 52 Tat’iana Kaptereva-Shambinago, Doma i za granitsei [At Home and Abroad] (Moscow: Novyi

khronograf, 2009), 76. According to the memoirs of Vasilenko’s step-granddaughter, Professor of

the History of Art, Tat’iana Kaptereva-Shambinago (b. 15.08.1923), he was the owner of a number

of residential houses in Moscow and this income provided him with generous funds for living.

47

Certainly, Vasilenko’s unpretentious loyalty towards the disadvantaged and

the representatives of the working class helped to re-instate his position as a reliable

state composer and a loyal citizen of the new communist rule. However, his path to

professional success and musical independence during the Soviet era was still a

challenging prospect and, at times, a demoralising and daunting experience, which

meant he could communicate openly neither with his colleagues nor the public. The

assessment of Vasilenko’s published memoirs and the unpublished documents

offered below attest to this statement.

1.4 Vasilenko’s memoirs

Vasilenko’s official compliance with the Soviet regime secured recognition of his

viola music neither in his lifetime nor posthumously. However, it permitted

Vasilenko to share his literary and musicological writings with the public, but only

during the final stages of his life. These publications are valuable for researches,

though the politics caused adverse effects on their content and completion. A reader

of the twenty-first century would expect that memoirs guarantee an authentic and

adequate recollection of a personal and professional life of an individual. However,

this was not the underlying principle with Vasilenko, who had to compromise his

integrity in the interest of the publication. His first book of memoirs called Stranitsy

vospominanii [Pages of Reminiscences]53 was available in print only in 1948, when

Vasilenko was in his late seventies, though a large proportion of its 1023 pages was

53 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow, Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe

izdatel’stvo, 1948).

48

ready by 1933.54 The book focuses mainly on Vasilenko’s formation as a musician

and on his collaborations with Taneev, Safonov, Rimskii-Korsakov, Tchaikovskii,

Sibelius, Saint-Saёns, Richard Strauss and other musicians, who occupied the

leading roles in European music at the turn of the twentieth century. Unfortunately,

the sequence of events does not go beyond the Socialist Revolution of 1917. Only

Vasilenko’s autobiography that is arranged as an introduction to the memoirs

provides a little information about his life in Soviet Russia.55 For instance,

Vasilenko briefly described his dynamic concert activities in 1918-1920. He

admitted that he could not recollect the names of all the organisations, apart from

workers clubs, hospitals and the radio, for which he worked as a conductor and

lecturer, though he insisted that he thoroughly enjoyed these commitments to a

largely unsophisticated audience.

One should be sceptical about this rather doubtful loss of memory as

Vasilenko did remember many minor details about his pre-Revolutionary activities

54 Vasilenko donated his manuscript Moi vospominaniia [My Memoirs] to the State National Library

in Moscow on 25 March 1933 on the following conditions that were accepted by the library: the

manuscript became the property of the library; only Vasilenko authorised anyone’s access to the

manuscript during his lifetime; Vasilenko could make copies of the manuscript and add new

chapters to the manuscript throughout his life, because the text was unfinished. Sergei Vasilenko,

Pis’mo v direktsiiu Publichnoi Biblioteki imeni Lenina [A Letter to the Directorate of the Public Library

Named after Lenin]. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 77, p. 22. Please note that Vasilenko’s

manuscript with his memoirs that is quoted in this and the following chapters is now housed in

RGALI and GNMCMC. The manuscript is divided into articles that are split into several funds with

different inventory numbers. 55 According to Tat’iana Kaptereva-Shambinago, Vasilenko burnt some of his hand-written memoirs

in the early 1950s that illustrated his activities during the Soviet period. He feared that their content

could potentially lead to the political and social oppression of his family. Boris Tarasov, interview by

the author, Moscow, July 19, 2012. Boris Tarasov is a musicologist and a friend of Kaptereva-

Shambinago.

49

that he described in the main part of this book. Evidently, he simply chose to avoid

identifying some of his work placements, including his brief membership of

Proletkult, a movement that was censured because of its political controversy with

the state over the nature of proletarian music and, as a result, was dissolved by the

Party in 1932.56 It is very likely that Vasilenko took no interest in any theoretical

disputes about the future of proletarian music. Taking into account his liberal

activities during the tsarist era it seems reasonable to assume that he simply carried

on the role of sharing his expertise with the deprived audiences.57 In the words of a

musicologist Boris Schwarz ‘Proletkult attracted many good musicians who

welcomed the opportunity of bringing music to the masses without much

theorizing’.58 Similar ideas of introducing classical music to the masses were shared

by two other societies, ‘Obshchestvo imeni I.S. Bakha’ [Society named after Johann

Sebastian Bach] and ‘Obshchestvo imeni Betkhovena’ [Society named after

Beethoven], which were founded and soon liquidated by the decrees of the public

and secret police, the NKVD [People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs].

56 Georgii Polianovskii, Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko i ego tvorchestvo [Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko

and his Creativity] (Moscow: Muzyka, 1964), 73. Proletkult is an abbreviation of ‘Proletarskie

kul’turno prosvetitel’skie organizatsii’ [Proletarian Cultural and Educational Organisations] officially

formed in August 1917, though the movement took its inspiration in 1909 from a group called

‘Vpered’ [Forward]. The aim of the movement was to develop a truly proletarian culture. Further

reading on this subject in: Neil Edmunds, The Soviet Proletarian Music Movement (Oxford, Bern,

Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien: Peter Lang, 2000). 57 Further information about Vasilenko’s philanthropic accomplishments may be found in the

subsection ‘Vasilenko’s philanthropic activities’. 58 Boris Schwarz, Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia. Enlarged Edition, 1917-1981 (Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1983), 20.

50

Vasilenko was among the senior members of these societies.59 Despite the altruistic

involvement, he did not jeopardize his first literary publication by adding in such

politically risky information.

Vasilenko did neither go into much detail about the social circumstances and

the dramatic change in the life of the Moscow Conservatoire circles. However,

regardless his enthusiastic tone of expression, one can read between the lines about

the significant changes and appalling conditions that he and his colleagues

experienced, especially when Vasilenko described their concert rewards as

‘treasures’.

[…] I have never seen such an exhilarating and thankful audience in front of me,

even during the period of the ‘Historic Concerts’. As a reward for our work we were

usually given bread, meat and sauerkraut. We received these treasures with a full

understanding of the efficiency of our undertaking. […]60

Aleksandr Grechaninov, Vasilenko’s former teacher and colleague, who

emigrated at first to France in 1925 and in 1939 to the USA, described the first years

after the Revolution, which he also spent in Moscow, using a dissimilar but

distinctive tone of expression and vocabulary: ‘The Bolsheviks won. A beggary life

has started, full of hardship. One even cannot call this period of our ill-fated

59 Ekaterina Vlasova, 1948 god v sovetskoi muzyke [1948 in Soviet Music] (Moscow: Klassika-XXI,

2010), 98-101. Both societies were formed in 1927-1928 and in 1930 were forced to merge with the

All Russian Music Society ‘Muzyka – massam’ [Music for the Masses] due to the ostensible reason of

similarities of their aims, which became a common legal practice for liquidating objectionable

organisations. 60 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow, Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe

izdatel’stvo, 1948), 31.

51

existence a life.’61 Unlike Vasilenko, Grechaninov was not restricted by the

censorship in describing his factual post-revolutionary experiences, because he

published his memoirs in Paris in 1934 and its second edition in New York in 1951.

Only in the early 1950s, in a private conversation that took place at

Vasilenko’s summer house outside Moscow, Vasilenko gave a rather different

account of that time. In May 1959, Nikolai Zriakovskii, Vasilenko’s former student

and then a colleague at the Conservatoire, recorded the depth of Vasilenko’s anguish

when he spoke about the inept actions that were introduced by the new rule.

[…] During one of our confidential minutes, Sergei Nikiforovich talked in great

distress about the clumsy break-up of the music tuition at the Moscow

Conservatoire in the first years after the Revolution; about the exceeding arrogance

and shameless interference of students into the work of teachers. It was obvious

how hard it was for him to live through this and carry it all. […]62

On the contrary, Vasilenko emphasised in his book that from 1917 his

compositional activities flourished, because the new regime and, in particular, the

state decree of 1932, gave him wider opportunities to be closer to his fellow

countrymen and explore Russian and Soviet subjects as well as folk music of other

nationalities of the Soviet state. Vasilenko concluded that these subjects had been

his aspirations ever since. He pointed out that he was one of the first tsarist

61 Aleksandr Grechaninov, Moia zhizn’ [My Life] (New York: Rausen Bros., 1951), 114. Aleksandr

Grechaninov, My Life, ed. and trans. Nicolas Slonimsky (New York: Coleman-Ross Co., 1952). 62 Nikolai Zriakovskii, Moi vospominaniia o S.N. Vasilenko [My Reminiscences About S.N. Vasilenko].

Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 1083, p. 12.

52

composers in Moscow, who offered his services to the Music Department of

Narkompros, an organisation that regulated the cultural life of the Bolsheviks.63

Without doubt, the Soviet political atmosphere and censorship played a

crucial role in Vasilenko’s literary style, which did not allow him to share and

disclose freely his thoughts and certain facts of the biography, in particular after

1917, and forced him to adopt an admiring stance towards socialist rule, which was

a common practice. In an unpublished archival document of a private conversation

between Vasilii Fedorov and Sergei Shambinago dated 3 August 1948, the best

friend of Vasilenko from the time of his studies at the Moscow University,

Shambinago, admitted that certain information, in particular about Taneev, was

valuable and the book would undoubtedly arouse interest.64 At the same time, he

pointed out that this publication was a pack of blatant lies as in his opinion were all

memoirs of the time. He boldly stressed that it was very likely Vasilenko was under

63 Narkompos is an abbreviation of Narodnyi Komissariat Prosveshcheniia [People’s Commissariat of

Enlightenment]. 64 Vasilii Fedorov, Chernovye nabroski, vypiski iz dnevnikov. Sergei Vasilenko. Housed in RGALI, fund

2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 22, p. 52. Sergei Konstantinovich Shambinago (1871-1948) was Professor of

Russian literature at the Moscow University and a lifelong friend of Vasilenko despite the fact that in

1910 Shambinago’s wife Tat’iana Alekseevna Shevaldysheva (1879-1944) became Vasilenko’s

devoted partner for 34 years. Vasilenko officially divorced his first wife Anna Prokof’evna on 20 June

1927 and married Tat’iana Alekseevna on 24 October 1930 according to the stamps in his identity

document N0630280 dated 24 November 1928 and his trudovaia knizhka [Worker’s Book] N371a

dated 29 May 1920. Sergei Vasilenko, Lichnye dokumenty. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr.

972-980, p. 10. Sergei Vasilenko, Sluzhebnye dokumenty. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 981-

993, pp. 6-22. In 1945, Vasilenko married Elena Shambinago (1901-1983), the daughter of Tat’iana

Alekseevna from her first marriage to Sergei Shambinago. This marriage of convenience fulfilled

Vasilenko’s wish to provide a legal protection along with the social and financial stability to the

daughter of his beloved second wife, as Vasilenko did not have an heir. Further reference in:

Tat’iana Kaptereva-Shambinago, Doma i za granitsei (Moscow: Novyi khronograf, 2009), 86.

53

the strong influence of his biographer, Georgii Polianovskii,65 who probably advised

him to evade and misuse some of the details of Vasilenko’s biography.

Undoubtedly, the individual aggrandizement of a public man as the means to

correspond closely with the paradigm of what a true Soviet composer should be

must have been the leading objective for the editor. These common features of the

time were encouraged in literary publications that had to be congruent with the

Soviet ideology. Equally, it is obvious that this book contained only a small

proportion of what Vasilenko could have included in this publication compared to

his ‘Vospominaniia’ [Memoirs] published in 1979 more than twenty years after his

death.66 Vasilenko started to work on this second book in the early 1950s, but did

not complete the volume and its final version based on his diaries was edited by the

musicologist Tamara Livanova. It provided more chronological details about his

family, upbringing and professional activities as well as his many trips abroad for

65 The name of a musicologist Georgii Aleksandrovich Polianovskii (1894-1983) appeared among

twelve other composers and musicologists, who fabricated a dossier against Nikolai Roslavets called

‘Pozornyi dokument’ [Disgraceful Document]. It was published in 1930 by the ‘Massovaia biblioteka

VAPM - Vserossiiskoi Assotsiatsii Proletarskikh Muzykantov’ [The Mass Library of the VAPM – All

Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians] in an anthology ‘Dovesti do kontsa bor’bu s

nepmanskoi muzykoi’ [Complete the Struggle against the NEPmen Music]. Further reference in:

Marina Lobanova, Nikolai Andreevich Roslavets I kul’tura ego vremeni (Moscow: Petroglif, 2011),

136. The NEPmen were businessmen during the NEP, the New Economic Policy, introduced by Lenin

in 1921 in order to encourage private trade that boosted the Soviet economy. The end of the New

Economic Policy in 1928 marked the start of the re-nationalisation of the economy under Stalin and

the political repression of the former businessmen. Further reference in: Alan Ball, “Private Trade

and Traders during NEP,” in Russia in the Era of NEP. Explorations in Soviet Society and Culture, ed.

Sheila Fitzpatrick, Alexander Rabinowitch, and Richard Stites (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

1991), 89-105.

66 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979).

54

recreation, concerts and research, though its subject was confined only to the period

until 1917.

This publication dropped the severely shortened and partly misleading

introductory biography from the first book that raised the queries above. However, a

number of articles from the manuscript remained excluded, including those about

the first Soviet Narkom [People’s Commissar] of Enlightenment in charge of culture

and education, Anatolii Lunacharskii, who became unpopular with the regime and

was sacked from his high-ranking ministry post in 1929, a writer and a family friend

Mikhail Bulgakov, whose plays were personally banned by Iosif Stalin and

government censorship,67 and about a doctor, Professor Grigorii Zakhar’in, which

gave a detailed account of Vasilenko’s aristocratic habits, and his social and cultural

milieu.68 Thus, any unbiased information on Vasilenko’s life and activities, in

particular during the Soviet period, has to be examined directly using his music

scores and unpublished archival sources, because the majority of musicological

books and articles about him during this period, even those published outside the

USSR, did not avoid the strong influence of propaganda.69 Besides, there have not

67 According to archival documents published by the research fund ‘Demokratiia’, the plays of

Bulgakov ‘The Purple Island’ and ‘Moliere’ (‘The Cabal of Hypocrites’) were prohibited on the Soviet

stage by Stalin in 1929 and 1936 respectively, despite their public success. Further reference in:

Leonid Maksimenkov, ed., Bol’shaia tsenzura. Pisateli i zhurnalisty v strane Sovetov, 1917-1956 [The

Great Censorship. Writers and Journalists in the Land of the Soviets, 1917-1956] (Moscow:

Demokratiia, 2005), 209, 455. 68 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed.

khr. 412, pp. 16-22, 31-34. Professor of medicine at the Moscow University, Grigorii Antonovich

Zakhar’in (1829-1898), was one of the leading Russian therapists of the time. Among his many

students, was the future renowned writer Anton Chekhov. 69 Further discussion of the portrayal of Vasilenko in the Soviet press may be found in the subsection

‘The Golovanovshchina’. Further reading on Vasilenko in English: 1. Stanley Dale Krebs, Soviet

55

yet been any publications during the post-Soviet period with the one exception of

those written by the author of this thesis that dedicated at least an article or a chapter

to this composer.

1.5 ‘The Golovanovshchina’

One of the typical examples of disinformation and misinterpretation about Vasilenko

due to the thorough politicization of Soviet society and its media was Vasilenko’s

association with the Golovanov case. In 1928, the name of Vasilenko publicly

appeared in connection with the political repression that led to the dismissal of

Nikolai Golovanov, the artistic director and conductor of the Bolshoi Theatre. This

fabricated case became known as the ‘Golovanovshchina’ [The Golovanov Case], in

which Golovanov was accused of having bourgeois habits and a conservative

approach to the new repertoire policy, thus preventing the promotion of young

artists.70 The initial allegation was caused by the inadequate libretto written by

Composers and the Development of Soviet Music (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1970), 82-85.

2. Rena Moisenko, Realist Music. 25 Soviet Composers (London: Meridian Books Ltd., 1949), 234-

242. Soviet archives were inaccessible for foreign researchers, who had to use only available

publications that during those times underwent severe censorship with any objectionable ideas

being removed in order to comply with the state autocratic ideology. Even Stanley Krebs, the first

American ever enrolled at the Moscow Conservatoire in 1959, who supplemented his book with

some personal encounters with Vasilenko’s contemporaries, was limited in his resources, because

any exposed contacts between Soviet citizens and foreigners were forbidden and could potentially

lead to imprisonment and labour camps. 70 Further reference in: Bol’shoi Teatr [Bolshoi Theatre], “Golovanovshchinu vyrvem s kornem [We

Will Root out the ‘Golovanovshchina’],” Moskovskaia Pravda [Moscow Pravda], May 5, 1928, Razdel

iskusstvo [Arts Section].

56

Mikhail Gal’perin71 for Vasilenko’s opera Syn solntsa [Son of the Sun] op. 62 that

was being staged at the Bolshoi. The libretto illustrated the freedom fighters in

China, a subject that highlighted the revolutionary concept. It correlated closely with

the official Soviet policy of replacing the old tsarist repertoire with newly created

operatic works, which aimed to illustrate the needs of the proletariat and reinforce

the socialist course of the Party that possessed absolute validity.72 In a private

conversation, Golovanov expressed his liking for the music but dissatisfaction with

the poor quality of the libretto which needed alterations. This confidential exchange

of views leaked out and was deliberately used by the administration, the Mestkom

[Local Committee], the Komsomol and communist party bureaus of the Bolshoi as

one of the grounds for a dossier against Golovanov, who purportedly made anti-

Semitic remarks.73 The harsh campaign in the press expanded so rapidly that it drew

the attention of Stalin.74

71 Mikhail Gal’perin (1882-1944) was a fine journalist, poet, translator and librettist, who was

brought up in a Jewish family in Kiev, Ukraine. Gal’perin actively collaborated on the stage

productions of the Bolshoi Theatre, the Malyi [Small] Theatre, the Moscow Theatre of Operetta, the

Stanislavskii and Nemirovich-Danchenko Moscow Academic Music Theatre and others. 72 Further reference on the new operatic Soviet policy in: 1. Meri E. Herrala, The Struggle for Control

of Soviet Music From 1932 to 1948: Socialist Realism vs. Western Formalism (Lewiston: The Edwin

Mellen Press, 2012), 71-105. 2. Ekaterina Vlasova, 1948 v sovetskoi muzyke (Moscow: Klassika-XXI,

2010), 39-80. 73 These alleged remarks were referred to Gal’perin, the author of the libretto, who was a Jew. 74 Iosif Stalin, “Otvet Bill’-Belotserkovskomu [The Answer to Bill’-Belotserkovskii],” in Iosif Stalin,

Sochineniia v 13 tomakh [Collection of Works in 13 Volumes] (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe

izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1949), vol. 11, 326-329. This article is dated 2 February 1929.

Nevertheless, according to the memoirs of Dmitrii Rogal’-Levitskii, Stalin did not change his harsh

judgement against Golovanov even in spring 1944 calling him a harmful anti-Semite. Further

reference in: Vladimir Lakshin, “Gimn. O 281-m avtore gimna. Dmitrii Rogal’-Levitskii [Anthem.

About the 281st Author of the Anthem],” Nezavisimaia gazeta [Independent Newspaper], February

12, 1991, Razdel arkhiv [Section: Archive], 5. For further details about this article see footnote 96.

57

The archive of Vasilenko has a draft of his letter dated 27 March 1928 to the

Mestkom of the Bolshoi Theatre, in which Vasilenko tried to defend his unjustly

accused former student and colleague Golovanov.75 It is worth quoting Vasilenko’s

unpublished letter at length, because he explained the true circumstances that

surrounded the plot:

1. I categorically deny a report that Nikolai Golovanov said the phrases that were

ascribed to him during the public discussion of my opera ‘Syn solntsa’ in my

flat on 18 March 1928, because such a discussion did not take place.

2. During our personal talk Golovanov expressed his negative view so abruptly

that made me very anxious, to the extent that I am in no condition to cope with

it yet.

3. The reasons behind this anxiety I cannot conceal anymore. In my opinion, the

administration in charge of the repertoire at the GABT 76 demonstrates a

negative attitude to my major works. My ballets Iosif Prekrasnyi and Lola are

removed from the repertoire.77 Golovanov is my friend and former student,

whose opinion is very precious to me; he stunned me with his statement that the

libretto serves no purpose. This could have been a new cause to cease the

production of my work and I naturally shared this opinion with my librettist,

Mikhail Gal’perin, in a private conversation.

75 Sergei Vasilenko, Zaiavlenie [Statement]. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 636, p. 1. 76 GABT is an abbreviation of the Gosudarstvennyi Akademicheskii Bol’shoi Teatr [State Academic

Bolshoi Theatre]. 77 Vasilenko’s ballet Iosif Prekrasnyi [Josef the Handsome] op. 50 was staged in March 1925 and in

1929 and Lola op. 52 in June 1943 and in 1950. Further reference in: 1. Ekaterina Vlasova, 1948 v

sovetskoi muzyke (Moscow: Klassika-XXI, 2010), 73, 77. 2. Georgii Ivanov, Sergei Nikiforovich

Vasilenko. Notograficheskii spravochnik [S.N. Vasilenko. Music Guide] (Moscow: Sovetskii

kompozitor, 1973), 120-121. 3. Georgii Polianovskii, Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko i ego tvorchestvo

(Moscow: Muzyka, 1964), 261.

58

4. I declare that one cannot make public conclusions from private conversations

and initiate proceedings. This is totally unacceptable. […]78

Needless to say, none of Vasilenko’s points of explanation were taken into

account. His line of defence was turned against him too in a series of articles in the

Soviet press. Thus, in an article called ‘Dirizher – antisemit. Trebuem

vmeshatel’stva prokuratury’ [The Conductor is an Anti-Semite. We Demand the

Involvement of the Prosecutor’s Office] published by a newspaper Komsomol’skaia

Pravda, Vasilenko was described as an accuser,79 an unfair label that stayed with

him for life. As a result of this choreographed campaign, Golovanov was sacked

from his job, though he was re-employed again in 1930.80

Vasilenko’s struggle to please the repertoire committee by writing an

ideologically suitable opera and, thus, demonstrate his loyalty to the regime resulted

in the production of his work in May 1929 and in 1934 at the Bolshoi Theatre.81

However, he paid a high personal price for this seeming success. It ruined his close

friendship with Golovanov, though Vasilenko was his backer,82 and among his

78 Sergei Vasilenko, Zaiavlenie. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 636, p. 1. 79 Glavlit, “Dirizher – antisemit. Trebuem vmeshatel’stva prokuratury,” Komsomol’skaia Pravda,

April 5, 1928, Razdel Iskusstvo [Arts section]. The article had no individual author but the resolution

of the official censorship and state secret protection organ officially abbreviated as Glavlit, Glavnoe

upravlenie po delam literatury i izdatel’stv [the Main Administration for Literary and Publishing

Affairs under the People’s Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR]. 80 Nikolai Golovanov (1891-1953) lost his post again in 1936, but was re-employed and then was

fired for the last time in 1953. 81 Further reference in: 1. Ekaterina Vlasova, 1948 v sovetskoi muzyke (Moscow: Klassika-XXI, 2010),

73. 2. Georgii Ivanov, Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko. Notograficheskii spravochnik (Moscow:

Sovetskii kompozitor, 1973), 120-121. 3. Georgii Polianovskii, Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko i ego

tvorchestvo (Moscow: Muzyka, 1964), 263. 82 Tat’iana Kaptereva-Shambinago, Doma i za granitsei (Moscow: Novyi khronograf), 127.

59

colleagues Vasilenko was perceived as a doctrinaire composer, who was better to be

avoided personally whenever possible.83 Perhaps in hope that one day wisdom and

integrity would prevail, Vasilenko kept all these negative articles along with his

statement among his private documents. Moreover, the unpublished recollections of

his friend and colleague Nikolai Zriakovskii contain Vasilenko’s comment made in

private in the early 1950s that the anti-Semite charges against Golovanov were pure

allegations.84 Today all these documents served their purpose and help one to

uncover the unknown side of Vasilenko’s assumed association with this story of the

purges.

1.6 Orchestration of the National Anthem of the USSR

The commission to orchestrate the National Anthem of the USSR, written by

Vasilenko’s former student Aleksandr Aleksandrov in 1943, provided for

Vasilenko’s social security in the last decade of his life. This was a risky bold step

for all people involved, because everything depended not only on the quality of the

final product but on its aptness for Stalin. Thus, Viktor Knushevitskii (1906-1974), a

former student of both Aleksandrov and Vasilenko, orchestrated the entries for the

final contest round of anthems. Stalin liked Aleksandrov’s music, but criticised its

orchestration.85 This was the moment when Vasilenko was called to step in, though

83 Stanley Dale Krebs, Soviet Composers and the Development of Soviet Music (London: George Allen

and Unwin Ltd., 1970), 85. 84 Nikolai Zriakovskii, Moi vospominaniia o S.N. Vasilenko. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr.

1083, p. 12. 85 Reference in: 1. Laurel E. Fay, Shostakovich: A Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 139.

2. Dmitry Shostakovich, Testimony, ed. Solomon Volkov (London: Faber & Faber, 2005), 201-205. 3.

Boris Gasparov, Five Operas and a Symphony: World and Music in Russian Culture (New Haven,

London: Yale University Press, 2005), 214-218.

60

he never mentioned in any of his documents that he was replacing someone else.86

This approach characterises Vasilenko as a wise decent man, who did not allow

himself to stoop to meanness by smashing people’s heads against each other. He

boldly followed the same principle in his speech at the plenum of the USSR Union

of Composers in 1948 that was held after the decree of Zhdanov against the

composers guilty of formalism, of which more in the conclusion of this thesis.87

Every day, from 1 January 1944 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in

December 1991, the orchestral recording of the National Anthem started all the

radio and TV broadcasts in the USSR. Vasilenko’s name was publicly announced in

connection with the Anthem only once. On 8 January 1944, a newspaper Literatura i

iskusstvo [Literature and Art] published a series of articles on its front page about

the first performance of the Anthem of the USSR, including a brief but detailed

article by Vasilenko on the principles of his instrumentation of the Anthem.88

Vasilenko kept the focus of his article primarily on the analysis of his instrumental

approach that in his opinion brought in a special orchestral colouring. It is

noteworthy that Vasilenko managed to put his points more succinctly than the other

authors of the articles, including a conductor Aleksandr Melik-Pashaev, who did not

avoid effusive praise describing the text and the music, which was a characteristic

86 Vasilenko only briefly mentioned that Aleksandrov asked him to take on this work, because in the

opinion of Aleksandrov, Vasilenko was the best. Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow,

Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1948), 19. 87 Sergei Vasilenko, Moe vystuplenie na pervom plenume [My Speech at the First Plenum]. Housed in

GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 1536, pp. 1-14. 88 Sergei Vasilenko, “Printsipy instrumentovki [Principles of Instrumentation],” Literatura i iskusstvo,

8 January, 1944, Razdel: V Sovete Narodnykh Komissarov SSSR [Section: In the Council of the

Peoples Commissars of the USSR].

61

feature of the time.89

The RGALI has Vasilenko’s unpublished recollections dated 7 August 1947

about Stalin and the private audition of the Anthem organised for him and the

members of the government that took place at the Bolshoi Theatre on 30 December

1943 at 10pm, which was followed by a banquet that Vasilenko managed to leave

only at 6am the following morning.90 The manuscript has many corrections

authorised by Vasilenko that polished his phrasing and content, which suggests that

he intended this text for publication. The speech of Stalin addressed to Vasilenko in

front of the members of the government, including Molotov, Beria, Kalinin, and

Vasilenko’s fellow colleagues, the conductors of the Bolshoi Theatre Golovanov,

Mravinskii, Melik-Pashaev and the poets Mikhalkov and El’-Registan, is worth

89 Aleksandr Melik-Pashaev, “Pervoe ispolnenie gimna [First Performance of the Anthem],”

Literatura i iskusstvo, 8 January, 1944, Razdel: V Sovete Narodnykh Komissarov SSSR [Section: In the

Council of the Peoples Commissars of the USSR]. 90 According to Vasilenko, the anthem was performed in three different arrangements that night: at

first, in C major for a men’s chorus with piano sang by the Red Army Choir and accompanied by

Aleksandr Aleksandrov, followed by the arrangement by Nikolai Ivanov-Radkevich for a wind

orchestra performed three times by the Red Army Band conducted by Semen Chernetskii and

finally, in the arrangement by Sergei Vasilenko for a symphony orchestra in E flat major performed

by the orchestra of the Bolshoi Theatre conducted by Aleksandr Melik-Pashaev. After the

performances, an officer disturbed the complete silence in the hall. He came on the stage and called

up Vasilenko to Stalin’s box: ‘Comrade Vasilenko, please come here!’ At the banquet, Vasilenko sat

opposite Stalin, who was sitting next to the members of the Politburo Molotov, Beria and Kalinin as

well as Aleksandr Shcherbakov (the First Secretary of the Moscow Regional Party Committee),

Mikhail Khrapchenko (the First Chairman of the Committee of the Arts Council of Ministers of the

USSR), Chernetskii and Melik-Pashaev. On Vasilenko’s side of the table were Aleksandrov, Ivanov-

Radkevich and the authors of the text of the Anthem Sergei Mikhalkov and Gabriel El’-Registan.

Sergei Vasilenko, I.V. Stalin. Vospominaniia. Glavy [I.V. Stalin. Memoirs. Chapters]. Housed in RGALI,

fund 2871 (Sobranie arkhivov deiatelei literatury) [Collection of Archives of Literary Figures], op. 1,

ed. khr. 72, p. 1.

62

quoting at length. Stalin not only expressed his gratitude to Vasilenko for making his

orchestration intelligible for the masses but, more importantly, explained the hostile

attitude of the Bolsheviks to the cultural heritage and its representatives.

[…] I will not talk about Aleksandrov - he is known to everyone, and his teacher

and the conductors, who are present here, know him even better. We will not talk

about the music, as we are not specialists, but we do have right to talk about

orchestration!91 Why? Because it sounds real and bright and expresses everything

that the music has; every listener that does not have a special music background can

justify this. Aleksandrov is ours; he has been working for us for a long time. Thus, I

would like to say about those, who came to help us. At the beginning of the

Revolution, there was a different attitude to the old masters, this attitude was

incorrect...There was a saying: we do not need the heritage of the past; let us create

everything new and unprecedented with our young people. This was wrong, as there

were many other ugly occurrences, which were unavoidable at the beginning of the

Revolution. How is this possible that science, literature, music and fine arts do not

rely on the experiences if not of previous years but of centuries? Why would old

masters not come with their experience and knowledge to teach young people how

to build a new life? Thus, the comrade came to help us and what a brilliant result we

have achieved! He is far from being young, but I can see that he is full of strength

and energy...Let us wish him many more years of health and creativity, so that he

would not only provide us with his compositions, but would teach his mastery to

our young people! To your health, Sergei Nikiforovich! […]92

91 Stalin liked to refer to himself in the royal plural. 92 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, I.V. Stalin. Vospominaniia. Glavy. Housed in RGALI, fund 2871, op. 1,

ed. khr. 72, p. 2.

63

This skilfully staged speech was full of compliments as well as repentances

for the past acceptable only to naive and inexperienced people, a category to which

none in the audience belonged. After the toast, Stalin continued in a fatherly way by

drawing a line of succession, which thrilled Vasilenko to the core.

[...] Here we are seeing a rare and touching connection: in a row, there are sitting

comrades Vasilenko, Aleksandrov and Ivanov-Radkevich, who made the military

instrumentation, which we all liked. Aleksandrov was taught by Professor

Vasilenko, Ivanov-Radkevich by Aleksandrov. This means: a father, son and

grandson. […]93

Vasilenko asked for the floor and followed this phony narrative by praising Stalin

for his support of arts.

[...] His participation in the arts is revealed not only in the creation of the Anthem;

he looks keenly and untiringly after Russian art in general. And if now it is indeed

possible to work productively in all fields of the arts, we are totally obliged for this

to Iosif Vissarionovich. […]94

Vasilenko emphasised that he did not quote his speech in detail but today it still

conveys the meaning of his political compliance with the supreme authority in art.

Vasilenko was truly proud of his orchestration. In his unpublished writing

dated between 1949 and the early 1950s, he expressed the feeling of honour for

93 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, I.V. Stalin. Vospominaniia. Glavy. Housed in RGALI, fund 2871, op. 1,

ed. khr. 72, p. 2. 94 Sergei Vasilenko, I.V. Stalin. Vospominaniia. Glavy. Housed in RGALI, fund 2871, op. 1, ed. khr. 72,

p. 3.

64

being entrusted with this mission of orchestrating the national anthem.95 His formal

obedience most certainly helped him to stay alive and carry on his professional

activities. One may say that Stalin was right to a degree in saying that the result of

Vasilenko’s collaboration was brilliant as it suited not only Soviet but also post-

Soviet rule. As one of the paradoxes of our time, in 2000, the National Anthem of

the USSR with new lyrics written by the same author, Mikhalkov, became the

National Anthem of the Russian Federation that continues to live on in Russia

today.96

95 Sergei Vasilenko, Avtobiograficheskie zapisi [Autobiographic Writings]. Housed in RGALI, fund

2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 408, p. 23. 96 According to the sources on Dmitrii Rogal’-Levitskii listed below, he re-orchestrated Aleksandrov’s

national anthem under Stalin’s order and supervision in spring 1944. Further reference in: 1. Ol’ga

Digonskaia, Interview by the author, Moscow, July 13, 2012. 2. Dmitrii Rogal’-Levitskii, “Stranitsy

vospominanii. Gosudarstvennyi gimn [Pages of Reminiscences. State Anthem],” ed. Ol’ga

Digonskaia, Muzykal’naia akademiia 3 (1998): 159-175. 3. Vladimir Lakshin, “Gimn. O 281-m avtore

gimna. Dmitrii Rogal’-Levitskii,” Nezavisimaia gazeta, February 12, 1991, Razdel arkhiv, 5. One

should not doubt that this re-orchestration did take place, though Vasilenko was left unaware of

this. At the same time, one should question how much Rogal’-Levitskii altered or changed the

orchestration. According to Rogal’-Levitskii’s article listed above, he added harps and bells,

enhanced the lower strings with pizzicato phrases, and intensified the texture and dynamics toward

the end of the anthem. Nevertheless, Vasilenko did not notice any changes when he listened to the

anthem in the presence of Rogal’-Levitskii. Vasilenko praised the orchestration as his own and

Rogal’-Levitskii did not dare to comment that he re-orchestrated it. The scores of both

orchestrations would have helped to answer this query. However, Vasilenko’s archives do not have

a copy of his orchestration and its location remains unknown at present. The supposition of the

author of this thesis with regard to the limited scope of changes in the re-orchestration of the

anthem is partly confirmed in the words of Stalin addressed to Rogal’-Levitskii, which were quoted

in the article of Vladimir Lakshin listed above: ‘You have taken the best of what it [the orchestration]

had before and combined it with your own fine ideas, which made the outcome as it was required.’

This article published in 1991 was based on the previously unpublished memoirs of Rogal’-Levitskii

dated 11-20 April 1944 written in Moscow that were passed after his death in 1962 to Vladimir

Lakshin, the son of a family friend. The memoirs describe the audition of the new orchestration of

65

1.7 Conclusion

In one of the unpublished writings,97 Vasilenko admitted that despite all the

tribulations and achievements of his life he was always alone, one to one with his

music, perfecting his skills and exploring the unexplored. Vasilenko did not seek

public acclaim, though he was awarded the honorary titles of People’s Artist of

Uzbek SSR in 1939 and of RSFSR in 1940, the prestigious Order of the Red Banner

twice, in 1943 and 1947, and then in 1947 the Stalin Prize of the first degree,98

which allowed him a number of social privileges.99 However, he received his first

honorary title Merited Worker of Arts in 1927 only after a petition addressed to the

Council of People’s Commissars and the Narkom Lunacharskii that was signed by

65 leading musicians and artists, including Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov, Nikolai

Golovanov, Boris Sibor and Vadim Borisovskii.100

On 5 November 1945, Vasilenko confessed in private to his close friend

Fedorov the reasons behind his complete subservience to the state commissions and

his dependence on the official liking for his music. the National Anthem and the following banquet that took place in spring 1944 in the presence of

Stalin and the other members of Politburo, which was conducted in a similar format to the one

described by Vasilenko in his article. Rogal’-Levitskii did not specify the date of the audition, but the

news, which Stalin received during the night banquet about the victories of the Red Army that

reached the state frontier on a front of 85 kilometres at the river Prut and liberated the town of

Kaments-Podolsk in Ukraine, point to 26 March 1944. 97 Sergei Vasilenko, Avtobiograficheskie zapisi. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 408, p. 6. 98 Vasilenko was awarded this prize for his orchestral ballet suite Mirandolina, op. 122a, 1946. 99 Vasilenko listed all his awards, prizes and medals in a handwritten manuscript dated 26 October

1953. Sergei Vasilenko, Avtobiograficheskie svedeniia [Autobiographic Data]. Housed in GNMCMC,

fund 52, ed. khr. 971. 100 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, Sluzhebnye dokumenty. Proshenie o nagrazhdenii S.N. Vasilenko

zvaniem zasluzhennyi deiatel’ iskusstv [Service Documents. A Petition to Award S.N. Vasilenko a Title

‘Merited Worker of Arts’]. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 981-993, pp. 24-29.

66

[…] I write an awful lot. I take on everything, absolutely everything. You would ask

why? I am wearing my last pair of shoes. […] I work hard, but everything goes

towards the food provision. All, all goes for the food. If this was only enough…

[…]101

Today, this short quotation justifies Vasilenko’s musical choices that

depended on the everyday necessity to provide for the family and retain its social

rank. Certainly, the execution of Stalin’s compulsory musical components such as

comprehensibility for the masses based on Russian heritage with folk and patriotic

themes made Vasilenko an exemplary model for the young composers. But fate can

play cruel tricks. Vasilenko’s enforced conformity to the ideals of the Communist

party, though he was not a member,102 and the fact that his career was allowed to

proceed relatively unchecked, led in the post-Soviet world to the view that he had

simply been a puppet of the state apparatus. Many fine examples of his music, in

particular for the viola, have been neglected in consequence.

Vasilenko’s family photo-albums in RGALI have official photos, showing

him posing in a formal suit with his Soviet medals on his blazer – but there are also

casual photos taken at home which show icons hanging in the krasnyi ugol [‘red’ or

‘beautiful corner’] which are displayed only in very religious homes.103 Vasilenko

was a devoted musician deeply rooted in Russian culture with a broad spectrum of 101 Quoted in Vasilii Fedorov, Chernovye nabroski, vypiski iz dnevnikov. Sergei Vasilenko. Housed in

RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 22, p. 50. 102 Vasilenko’s ‘Vypiska iz trudovogo spiska’ [The Extract from the List of Jobs] dated 13 February

1928 states that he does not hold a Party membership. Sergei Vasilenko, Sluzhebnye dokumenty.

Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 981-993, p. 31. 103 Sergei Vasilenko, Al’bom s fotografiiami S.N. Vasilenko [Album with Photographs of S.N.

Vasilenko]. Housed in RGALI, fund 1937 (Sobranie fotografii deiatelei iskusstv) [Collection of

Photographs of Artists], op. 5, ed. khr. 108-110.

67

knowledge, interests and talents, some of which Soviet life taught him to keep to

himself. These days Vasilenko’s music has fallen from view – in Russia itself, never

mind further afield – and the little reputation he retains is as a conformist Soviet

composer. Today, almost a century later, when all the aesthetic and political issues

and disputes of the twentieth century have been resolved and settled with the

passage of time, one should approach Vasilenko’s works with a fresh and open-

minded attitude.

68

Chapter Two

Published and unpublished works for viola by Sergei Vasilenko

This chapter provides the first ever complete list of Vasilenko’s viola works

compiled by the author of this thesis. Most of these compositions were written

during the Soviet period, but hardly any were either published or premiered during

the lifetime of Vasilenko. For these reasons, it is significant to recognize the

possible causes that led the majority of viola compositions of a well-established and

loyal Soviet composer to remain unknown to the public until today, over half a

century after his death. This chapter is also a study of the factors that made

Vasilenko become interested in the viola in particular and, as it was previously

unknown, retain this interest until the last years of his life. His perception of the

viola changed the boundaries of the technical and sonorous potential of the

instrument as Vasilenko approached and challenged it in different genres.

Such a variety of compositional approaches that Vasilenko undertook in his

viola works was unusual for the viola repertoire in general and also atypical for

Vasilenko’s contemporaries, of which more below. What made Vasilenko choose

this tactic? It is likely that his broad spectrum of cultural, historical and musical

interests were conducive to this distinctive implementation of Russian idioms

combined with the specific lexicon of oriental and early music, to name but a few.

For this reason, a part of this chapter is dedicated to Vasilenko’s publications on

music, including his book on instrumentation, articles and press reports, which help

one to link and perceive the aesthetic and artistic underlay of his interests in music,

some of which he conveyed in his viola compositions. Due to the political

69

circumstances that prevented Vasilenko from sharing his musical pursuits openly,

the following discussion is largely supported by the archival materials.

2.1 Vasilenko’s publications on music as a reflection of his compositional

pursuits

The new socialist regime that replaced the tsarist reign in 1917 imposed new laws

and values, which severely constrained Vasilenko from openly composing music on

the subjects he was inspired by for years and from expanding and sharing his

research interests in the Soviet press. This explains why Vasilenko’s publications on

music are of a different value for contemporary researches. Vasilenko occasionally

contributed brief, but insignificant reports and reviews about his new compositions

and those of his colleagues to the Soviet press, including the newspapers Pravda,

Izvestiia, Sovetskoe iskusstvo [Soviet Art] and Literaturnaia gazeta [Literary

Newspaper], and the magazine Sovetskaia muzyka [Soviet Music].104 The titles of

these articles illustrated their content, which reproduced a typical Soviet style aimed

to praise and gratify the regime rather than give a detailed assessment of the true

quality of compositions. Among these articles were ‘Sozdadim muzyku, blizkuiu

narodu’ [Let Us Create Music That is Close to the People], ‘Sovetskie kompozitory o

svoei rabote’ [Soviet Composers on Their Work] and ‘Moi novye muzykal’nye

proizvedeniia’ [My New Musical Works].105 Vasilenko also prepared a few articles

104 The list that includes some of these publications was compiled in: Georgii Ivanov, Sergei

Nikiforovich Vasilenko. Notograficheskii spravochnik (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1973), 157. 105 1. Sergei Vasilenko, “Sozdadim muzyku, blizkuiu narodu,” Literaturnaia gazeta, March 28, 1948,

Razdel iskusstvo [Arts Section]. 2. Sergei Vasilenko, “Sovetskie kompozitory o svoei rabote,” Pravda,

70

about his contemporaries and friends, including the composer Ippolitov-Ivanov, the

singers Vasilii Petrov, bass, and Antonina Nezhdanova, soprano, for the anthologies

about these musicians, some of which were published in the lifetime of Vasilenko

and the others posthumously.106 These articles provided a general review of the role

of these personalities in Soviet musical life, but their narrative style closely

corresponded to reminiscences rather than to a typical musicological publication

with a thorough evaluation.

Notably, a series of Vasilenko’s articles published in a newspaper Novosti

radio [News of the Radio] in 1925, when the censorship was not as severe as

towards the end of the 1920s and beyond, Vasilenko approached the subject of his

genuine interest unreservedly.107 Among them were the articles that he used for his

radio programmes and for his lectures on the history of music at Moscow University

from 1920-1925: ‘Pesni trubadurov’ [Songs of Troubadours], ‘Muzyka Kitaia’

[Music of China], ‘Narodnaia iaponskaia muzyka’ [National Japanese Music] and

November 14, 1934, Razdel iskusstvo [Arts Section]. 3. Sergei Vasilenko, “Moi novye muzykal’nye

proizvedeniia,” Sovetskoe iskusstvo, March 5, 1936, Razdel muzyka [Music Section]. 106 Further reference in: 1. Sergei Vasilenko, “Vospominaniia [Memoirs],” in Mikhail Ippolitov-

Ivanov, Pis’ma. Stat’i. Vospominaniia [Letters. Articles. Memoirs], ed. Nikolai Sokolov (Moscow:

Sovetskii kompozitor, 1986), 270-276. 2. Sergei Vasilenko, “Na stsene i v zhizni [On the Stage and in

Life],” in Antonina Nezhdanova. Materialy i issledovaniia [Materials and Research], ed. Vera Vasina-

Grossman (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1967), 415-419. 3. Sergei Vasilenko, “Moi vospominaniia o Vasilii

Rodionoviche Petrove [My Reminiscences about V. R. Petrov],” in Vasilii Rodionovich Petrov. Sbornik

statei i materialov [Anthology of Articles and Documents], ed. Igor’ Belza (Moscow: Muzgiz, 1953),

128-134. 107 A further discussion of the political circumstances of the time is in the subsection ‘Reasons for

the neglect of Vasilenko’s viola works during his lifetime’.

71

‘Vagner i ego vremia’ [Wagner and His Time].108 One may classify their content as

articles on music history and Asian folk traditions, which revealed Vasilenko’s

expertise and erudition in these disciplines. These musical interests correlated

closely with his compositional pursuits of this period, though he did not write any

articles about them. These include his two early music arrangements for viola and

piano listed in the subsection below as well as his Sonata for Viola and Piano, the

Legend and the Oriental Dance, in which he broadly executed oriental idioms.109

Vasilenko followed a similar educational approach in his major publication,

which was not available in print until a few years before his death. This book in two

volumes, aimed at semi-professional and professional academic readers, is an

important source of the authentic information on Vasilenko’s interpretation and

perception of orchestral instruments, including the viola, which will be used in this

thesis. The first volume of this in-depth study on orchestral instrumentation called

Instrumentovka dlia simfonicheskogo orkestra [Instrumentation of a Symphony

Orchestra] was published only in 1952,110 largely because it was acknowledged as a

valuable scholarly source by the professors of the Moscow Conservatoire. The

archive of Vasilenko has a letter from the secretary of the Department of

Instrumentation at the Conservatoire, Iurii Fortunatov, to the Gosudarstvennoe

108 Sergei Vasilenko, Novosti radio, 1925, issues no. 5, 9, 20, 21. A detailed discussion of Vasilenko’s

interest in oriental music, the early music and the modern artistic trends is in the third and the fifth

chapters. 109 A detailed study of Vasilenko’s viola works is in the third and fourth chapters and a brief review

of his late pieces in the subsection ‘Late works of the early 1950s’ below and in Appendix 3. 110 Sergei Vasilenko, Instrumentovka dlia simfonicheskogo orkestra (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe

muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1952), vol. 1. The manuscript is housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 920.

72

Muzykal’noe Izdatel’stvo [State Music Publishing House] dated 7 March 1951.111 It

states that the department thoroughly discussed the content of the book in the course

of its meetings, approved it on 12 October 1950 and strongly recommended it for

publication.

As Vasilenko explained in the foreword written in 1950, he intended his

study in three volumes for students studying orchestration. Only the first two

volumes were completed and published. The first consists of almost four hundred

pages and over two hundred musical samples based on Russian and Soviet music

and divided into two large sections: strings and woodwinds with French horns. Each

section is subdivided further into smaller articles. Although, the content had purely

academic subject-matter, Vasilenko still had to observe and balance his text against

the constraints of Soviet indoctrination and the requirements of censorship. They

required that any book on Russian-Soviet music encompassed a distinct illustration

of the music for the masses and of the national republics of the USSR fused with

communist ideas, thus balancing the study of the past with awareness of the

present.112 In the words of the Narkom of Enlightenment, Lunacharskii, the Marxist

ideology proved to be an inspiration for composers and, thus, writers on music too

111 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, Sluzhebnye dokumenty. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 981-

993, p. 35. 112 For further information about the censorship requirements of the time see: 1. Neil Edmunds,

“Lenin is always with us: Soviet Musical Propaganda and its Composers during the 1920s,” in Neil

Edmunds, ed., Soviet Music and Society under Lenin and Stalin: The Baton and Sickle (London, New

York: Routledge Curzon, 2004), 105-122. 2. Simo Mikkonen, Music and Power in the Soviet 1930s: a

History of Composers’ Bureaucracy (Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press,

2009), 181-228. 3. Stanley Dale Krebs, Soviet Composers and the Development of Soviet Music

(London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1970), 34-60.

73

had to be social in content, depicting the virtues of the new society.113 As a

consequence, Vasilenko included among the refined works of Glinka, Rimskii-

Korsakov, Borodin, Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Prokofiev and other fine Russian-

Soviet composers, examples of music written in a truly conformist Socialist Realism

style.114

The first volume is the most authentic of the two, because the second volume

was published posthumously in 1959 and was revised and edited by Fortunatov, who

started to work on this publication together with Vasilenko. However, according to

the foreword written by the composer Vissarion Shebalin, the initial author’s plan of

the second volume dated 1955 was considerably changed with some chapters being

excluded from the final text and others re-written by Fortunatov.115 This volume

undertakes a discussion of various combinations between instrumental groups in

polyphony, harmony, accompaniment, melodies, phrasing in unison and dialogues. 113 Anatolii Lunacharskii, “O sotsiologicheskom metode v teorii i istorii muzyki [About the Social

Method in Theory and History of Music],” in Anatolii Lunacharskii, V mire muzyki. Stat’i i rechi [In the

World of Music. Articles and Speeches], ed. Igor’ Sats and Grigorii Bernandt (Moscow: Sovetskii

kompozitor, 1971), 158-176. 114 Vasilenko added some minor compositions of the composers obedient to the Soviet regime,

including the Turkmen suite by the Turkmen composer Veli Mukhatov (1916-2005) and the

Kolkhoznye pesni [Songs of a Collective Farm] by Lev Knipper (1989-1974). Socialist Realism is a

realistic style in literature, music and art that propagandizes and glorifies the achievements of

socialism and of the working class. Further reference in: 1. Meri E. Herrala, The Struggle for Control

of Soviet Music from 1932 to 1948: Socialist Realism vs. Western Formalism (Lewiston: The Edwin

Mellen Press, 2012), 56-69. 2. Simo Mikkonen, Music and Power in the Soviet 1930s: a History of

Composers’ Bureaucracy (Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2009), 243-283.

3. Katerina Clark, Moscow, the Fourth Rome: Stalinism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Evolution of Soviet

Culture, 1931-1941 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Press, 2011), 105-135. 115 Sergei Vasilenko, Instrumentovka dlia simfonicheskogo orkestra (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe

muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1959), vol. 2. The manuscript is housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr.

1079.

74

In the third, unprepared volume, Vasilenko planned to write about the methods of

orchestration in accompanying solo instruments, which would have helped one in

understanding of his compositional schemes and tactics in the solo instrumental

repertoire.

Thus, one may conclude that due to the political circumstances, Vasilenko’s

writings on music, with the exception of a few occasional publications in periodicals

of the early 1920s mentioned above and the scholarly book on orchestration, did

suffer uncompromising restrictions in their content. Vasilenko’s true musical

interests, including his expertise in Oriental and early music, which he conveyed in

his viola compositions, corresponded only to a fraction of his writings. As with

Vasilenko’s memoirs, this considerably limits the scope of trustworthy

musicological resources for contemporary research on Vasilenko, turning his music

scores and archival documents into the primary sources for the study of the

composer and of his music. Thus, the gathering of information on Vasilenko’s viola

works offered below would have been simply impossible without his unpublished

manuscripts.

2.2 A complete list of published and unpublished works for viola by Sergei

Vasilenko

It would be reasonable to list all existing viola compositions of Vasilenko in

chronological order; this would clarify the raison d’être of their emergence, assist

the detailed analysis of their qualities and instrumental innovations and evaluate

their significance. The list of compositions given below is the first up-to-date

complete record of Vasilenko’s works for viola with the details of their publication

75

and the location of the manuscripts. It was compiled by the author of this thesis

using all available published and archival materials about the composer.116

Table 2.2 The list of viola compositions by Sergei Vasilenko with the details of

their manuscripts and publications

Categories/

Periods

Year of

creation

Title of a work Publication

Early period/

Arrangements

of early

music

1914 Noktiurn [Nocturne] for viola

and piano (from the music for a

theatre production after

William Shakespeare Son v

letniuiu noch’ [A Midsummer

Night’s Dream], op. 28).117

Unpublished,

manuscript is lost.

1918 Chetyre p’esy na temy liutnevoi

muzyki 16 i 17 vekov [Four

Pieces on Themes of Lute

Moscow, Vienna,

New York:

Gosudarstvennoe

116 The sonata, the lute pieces, the Oriental Dance and the four pieces of the 1950s that are

compiled in this Table 2.2 were listed in the overall list of Vasilenko’s compositions in: Georgii

Ivanov, Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko. Notograficheskii spravochnik (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor,

1973), 30, 35, 100, 109. 117 This work is listed only in Georgii Polianovskii’s book ‘Sergei Vasilenko’ published twice in

Moscow by Muzgiz and Muzyka in 1947 and 1964 respectively. According to the list of Vasilenko’s

compositions in these publications, this piece was also transcribed for cello and piano, which was

published by Iurgenson in Moscow in 1916. However, not a single copy of this publication has yet

been found, though this piece along with the Pavane from the lute pieces was listed in a concert

programme performed by Dmitrii Mogilevskii, cello, and the composer, piano, at the Malyi Zal

[Small Hall] of the Moscow Conservatoire on 2 February 1924. Sergei Vasilenko, Al’bom

dokumentov. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 788, p. 70.

76

Music of the Sixteenth -

Seventeenth Centuries]

op. 35 for viola and piano

1. Pavana [Pavane]

2. Madonna Tenerina

3. Serenada dame serdtsa

[Serenade for the Lady of

my Heart]

4. Rytsari [Knights]

muzykal’noe

izdatel’stvo RSFSR

[the RSFSR State

Publishing House],

Universal Edition,

1930, 1932.

The manuscripts are

housed in

GNMCMC, fund 52,

ed. khr. 54- 60.

Unknown Zodiakus I.A.S. Siuita iz

proizvedenii neizvestnykh

avtorov 18 veka [Zodiakus

I.A.S. Suite after Unknown

Authors of the Eighteenth

Century] for viola and piano

1. Ouverture

2. Passacaille

3. Menuet

4. Plainte

5. Musette

Unpublished

manuscript, housed

in the Russian State

Library, Moscow,

fund Bor. 4/74.

Middle-

period

1922 Vostochnyi tanets

[Oriental Dance] op. 47

for clarinet in B-flat or viola

Unpublished for

viola and piano,

viola manuscript is

77

and piano lost.

For clarinet in B-flat

and piano, Moscow:

Gosmuzizdat, 1931.

Moscow: Muzgiz,

1949, 1959.

The clarinet

manuscript is housed

in GNMCMC, fund

52, ed. khr. 242.

1923 Sonata for viola and piano

op. 46

Moscow:

Gosudarstvennoe

muzykal’noe

izdatel’stvo RSFSR

1925, 1931.

Moscow: Muzgiz,

1955.

Moscow: Muzyka,

1985.

The manuscript is

housed in RGALI,

fund 653 (Muzgiz),

op. 1, ed. khr. 239.

Late period 5 August, Spiashchaia reka Unpublished

78

1951 [Sleeping River] for viola and

piano

manuscript, housed

in GNMCMC, fund

52, ed. khr. 817.

Unknown Kolybel’naia [Lullaby]

for viola and piano

Unpublished

manuscript, housed

in GNMCMC, fund

52, ed. khr. 900.

25

August,

1953

Chetyre p’esy [Four pieces]

for viola and piano

1. Preliudiia [Prelude]

2. Etiud [Etude]

3. Legenda [Legend]

4. Skertso/Tokkata

[Scherzo/ Toccata]

Unpublished

manuscript, housed

in GNMCMC, fund

52, ed. khr. 500.

It is evident from the Table 2.2 above that Vasilenko’s viola compositions fall into

three categories and periods: early period/adaptations of early music, middle-period

and late works. Thus, it would be logical to examine them according to the

groupings formed above.118

118 The date of the Zodiakus and Lullaby remain unknown. However, they clearly correspond to the

style of other works from particular phases. Thus, the Zodiakus is another adaptation of early music

and the language of the Lullaby is comparable to the early 1950s pieces. Their detailed analyses are

in the subsections on ‘Zodiakus’ in the third chapter and in the ‘Late works of the early 1950s’ in this

chapter and Appendix 3.

79

2.3 The stimulus for Vasilenko’s interest in the viola

Vasilenko’s seven compositions for viola and piano assume special importance.119

Russian viola repertoire was very modest at the beginning of the twentieth century

and had only a few original works worthy of merit and these unfortunately did not

win much recognition among either the public or performers.120 The violists who

performed these compositions, did not form the forefront of a viola movement that

would change the reputation of the instrument. Their professional interests lay

largely either in the field of chamber or violin music as they all were initially trained

as violinists. The absence of an active viola soloist on concert stages and a rather

sceptical perception of the technical and sound qualities of the viola among

musicians and consequently the public resulted in its negligible rank among other

instruments of the string family. The status of the viola as a valuable ensemble and

orchestral rather than a solo instrument prevailed in Russian minds until the early

119 The absence of the text of the Nocturne, 1914, makes it impossible to analyse and evaluate this

work at present. Therefore, it is reasonable to regard the lute pieces, 1918, as Vasilenko’s first

composition for viola and piano. 120 Regrettably, there are only a few viola compositions worthy of notice from this period. Among

them were the following works for viola and piano: sonatas op. 10 by Aleksandr Vinkler and op. 15

by Pavel Iuon, sonata op. 49 and the pieces op. 11 by Anton Rubinstein, Elegy op. 44 by Aleksandr

Glazunov and Eclogue and Romance op. 12-13 by Fedor Akimenko. Such notable works as the

sonata by Mikhail Glinka and the viola concerto attributed to Ivan Khandoshkin were not discovered

until 1932 and the middle of the 1940s respectively. Further reference in: 1. Stanislav Poniatovskii,

Istoriia al’tovogo iskusstva [The History of the Viola] (Moscow: Muzyka, 2007), 144-161. 2. Anne

Mischakoff, Khandoshkin and the Beginning of Russian String Music (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI

Research Press, 1983). 3. Franz Zeyringer, Literatur für Viola [Literature for the Viola] (Hartberg

Österreich: Verlag Julius Schönwetter Jun., 1976). 4. Mikhail Grinberg, Russkaia al’tovaia literatura

[Russian Literature for the Viola] (Moscow: Muzyka, 1967), 11, 79-86.

80

1920s, when the thriving concert activities of a young violist, Vadim Borisovskii

(1900–72), drew attention to the viola.121

Vasilenko left no written explanation of the stimulus that brought his viola

works into being. Certainly his sonata for viola and piano was composed in

December 1923 and dedicated to Borisovskii, who premiered this work with the

composer at the piano on 8 January 1924 in the Small Hall of the Moscow

Conservatoire. Nevertheless, Vasilenko’s first composition for viola and piano was

not his sonata, as one would have thought taking into account the rapid rise to fame

of Borisovskii, but the Four Pieces on Themes of Lute Music of the Sixteenth -

Seventeenth Centuries, op. 35. They were written in 1918, at a time when

Borisovskii was only one of many violin students in Moscow. The date of this suite

points to the fact that the initial interest of Vasilenko in the viola was influenced by

causes other than the artistic talents of Borisovskii, which a few years later inspired

Vasilenko and many other composers, including Nikolai Roslavets.122

In view of Vasilenko’s later reputation as a master of instrumentation, it

seems reasonable to assume that his interest in the viola arose from his desire to

experiment with different instrumental techniques, timbres and sound effects, which

he broadly explored in these pieces, of which more below. One may also connect the 121 Borisovskii, like his colleagues, began his career as a chamber violist, but despite all odds, moved

on to promote the viola as a solo instrument, giving recitals, researching and arranging works for

this instrument. He was one of the founder-members of the Beethoven Quartet in 1922–1923,

remaining in the group until 1964, when he was replaced by one of his prominent former students,

Fedor Druzhinin (1932-2007). 122 Vadim Borisovskii was a dedicatee of sonatas for viola and piano by Vladimir Kriukov (op. 15,

1920-1921), Sergei Vasilenko (op. 46, 1923), Nikolai Roslavets (1926 and the 1930s), Aleksandr

Mosolov (op. 21a) and Vasilii Shirinskii (1924); pieces for viola and piano by Vladimir Kriukov (op.

13), Aleksandr Mosolov (op. 2, 1922-1923) and by Aleksandr Krein (op. 2a) among others.

81

appearance of this nostalgic, gentle and innocent music with Vasilenko’s attempt to

sink into a reverie from the realities of everyday life in 1918, one of the most brutal

post-revolutionary years of the Civil War. This was the year when he was

imprisoned, of which more in the following subsection. Like the composer

Grechaninov, who approached religious subjects in his music of this period in order

to forget the inhumanity of the time,123 Vasilenko composed this cycle of pieces that

allowed him to escape to the troubadours’ world of pure spirituality and idealistic

ardour. Besides, the mellow timbre of the viola suited well the figurative poetic

interpretation of their lament and lively songs and dances, which Vasilenko skilfully

transferred to a twentieth-century idiom.

However, the Sonata was only acknowledged and performed from time to

time in the viola class of Vadim Borisovskii,124 who was the driving force of the

majority of solo-viola activities in Moscow from 1923 until 1963, when a heart

attack stopped his performing engagements. Borisovskii certainly knew of the

existence of these lute pieces; he included them, along with the Sonata, in a

catalogue of viola repertoire compiled in 1931 and published in 1937 in Germany,125

123 Aleksandr Grechaninov, Moia zhizn’ (New York: Rausen Bros., 1951), 109. 124 Evgeniia Stoklitskaia, interview by the author, Moscow, August 23, 2010. Stoklitskaia (b. 1937),

the Head of the String Department at the Gnesin State Music College in Moscow and an author and

editor of educational anthologies and publications for viola players, is a former student of

Borisovskii and his close family friend. 125 Wilhelm Altmann and Vadim Borisovskii, Literaturverzeichnis für Bratsche und Viola d’amore

(Wolfenbüttel: Verlag für musikalische Kultur und Wissenschaft, 1937), 22, 57. Further discussion of

this catalogue is in the subsection ‘Reasons for the neglect of Vasilenko’s viola works during his

lifetime’.

82

but there is no evidence that he ever performed them in public and they have

remained unperformed until recently.126

2.4 Reasons for the neglect of Vasilenko’s viola works during his lifetime

The main reason for such neglect was, as so often at the time, political. The rigorous

campaign against ‘poputchiki’ ['fellow travellers'], the slogan that was used to

describe those who accepted the Revolution, but were not active participants,

circulated in the Soviet press from 18 June 1925 after a resolution of the Party’s

Central Committee ‘O politike partii v oblasti khudozhestvennoi literatury’ [On the

Policy of the Party in the Field of Belles-lettres]. This policy was designed to target

literature, but in practice was also interpreted as a guideline in the field of music.127

The meticulous chistki ['cleansing', purges] among musicians, who were judged by

their social origins and contributions to revolutionary values, were initiated by the

Soviet authorities through the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians

(RAPM), which by then effectively controlled Soviet musical life.128 The words of

126 There is only a single concert flyer that states that the Pavane was performed on the cello.

Further reference may be found in footnote 117. 127 Further reference in: 1. Simo Mikkonen, Music and Power in the Soviet 1930s: A History of

Composers’ Bureaucracy (Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2009), 1-40. 2.

Aleksandr Voronsky, “On Proletarian Art and the Artistic Policy of Our Party,” in Aleksandr Voronsky,

Art as the Cognition of Life. Selected Writings, 1918-1936, ed. and trans. Frederick Choate

(Michigan: Mehring Books Inc., 1998), 147-171, 443-448. 3. Katerina Clark, “The ‘Quiet Revolution’

in Soviet Intellectual Life,” in Sheila Fitzpatrick, Alexander Rabinowitch, and Richard Stites, eds.,

Russia in the Era of NEP: Explorations in Soviet Society and Culture (Bloomington: Indiana University

Press, 1991), 210-230. 128 RAPM, the Rossiiskaia assotsiatsia proletarskikh muzykantov, was founded in Moscow in 1923

and disbanded by the Party decree on 23 April 1932. More information on this decree is in footnote

83

the music-critic Vladimir Blium129 in an article ‘Protiv psevdo-proletarskikh

techenii v muzyke’ [Against Pseudo Proletarian Movements in Music] published in

the newspaper Vecherniaia Moskva [Evening Moscow] dated 10 October 1930

became typical of the time.

[…] Where is the heap130 of the qualified music poputchiki that make the Soviet

musical culture of today – Vasilenko, Miaskovskii, Ippolitov-Ivanov, Shostakovich,

Glier, Krein and others? Why are they not here? They are not here, because they are

terrorised by the group of musicians that call themselves ‘proletarian musicians’.

[…]131

Vasilenko did neither leave any official justificatory testimonials in

18 in the Introduction to the thesis. RAPM strove for the ideological monopoly in music and

considered its members the only representatives of the true proletariat. Nikolai Roslavets did not

escape the repression of the RAPM despite his peasant roots. Further reference in: 1. Marina

Frolova-Walker and Jonathan Walker, Music and Soviet Power, 1917-1932 (Woodbridge: The Boydell

Press, 2012), 100-117. 2. Nikolai Roslavets, Pis’ma [Letters]. Housed in RGALI, fund 2659, op. 1, ed.

khr. 94, pp. 1-20.

129 Vladimir Ivanovich Blium (1877-1941) was a harsh music and theatre critic, the political editor of

the music-theatre section of the Glavrepertkom that determined the state repertoire policy.

Glavrepertkom is an abbreviation of Glavnyi komitet po kontroliu za zrelishchami i repertuarom

[Chief Committee for the Inspection of Entertainments and Repertoire], in which Nikolai Roslavets

led the music department. For further information about the Soviet state music agencies see: Amy

Nelson, Music for the Revolution. Musicians and Power in Early Soviet Russia (Pennsylvania: The

Pennsylvania University Press, 2004), 125-154. 130 The Soviet press was kept under strict control of the state and was thoroughly politicised as it

was the most natural and powerful way to spread propaganda among readers. Blium’s article was

written for the general public and, therefore, he preferred to use informal proletarian vocabulary

such as the ‘tolshcha’ [the heap of people] instead of being in accord with conventional formal

rhetoric, for example ‘a presence’. 131 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, Al’bom dokumentov. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 788, p.

95.

84

attempting to defend his name nor his colleagues.132 Besides, the association of his

name with the Golovanov case that occurred only two years earlier taught him that

any such attempts would be useless if not damaging for all.133 Vasilenko was

tongue-tied - the fate of those who fell from official favour and suffered from

orchestrated prejudicial ideological accusations, from which there was no escape for

anyone.

Another reason for the neglect of Vasilenko’s viola compositions might

sound ludicrous today, but the political oppression was directed not only against

individuals and their aesthetic ideas that did not conform to the Soviet ideology but

also against musical instruments. Thus, in the early 1930, the RAPM decided that

the viola was an instrument that overloaded the educational programmes. As a result

of this directive Borisovskii, who held the only viola professorship at the Moscow

Conservatoire,134 was forced to resign from his post in 1931, and all his students

were compelled to enrol on the violin course. Unofficially, his students continued

their viola tuition at Borisovskii’s home despite the fear of very likely trouble if this

arrangement was revealed. Only a year later, Borisovskii was invited back to the

Conservatoire due to the fact that the RAPM was dissolved by that time.135

132 Vasilenko’s memoirs of 1948 and 1979 contain his contradictory views on Roslavets’ music

language without going into any ideological polemics. 133 A detailed discussion of this case is in the subsection ‘The Golovanovshchina’ in the first chapter. 134 Vadim Borisovskii occupied this post from September 1925, when he replaced his former

Professor Vladimir Bakaleinikov (1885-1953), who emigrated to the USA. Further reference in:

Vladimir Bakaleinikov, Zapiski muzykanta [Notes of a Musician] (New York: Vladimir Bakaleinikov,

1943). 135 No copies of these directives have been found in archives yet, including those among

Borisovskii’s documents. However, this information was confirmed in the following reliable sources:

1. Aleksandra De-Lazari Dolli Borisovskaia, “Monolog [A Monologue],” in Vadim Borisovskii, Zerkal

85

Borisovskii was profoundly dedicated to the development of the viola and to

the research and the enlargement of its repertoire.136 However, his fine professional

volshebnyi krug [The Magical Circle of Mirrors] (Moscow: Reka vremen, 2012), 18. 2. Vladimir

Smirnov, Russkii kharakter [Russian Character], ed. Aleksandr Nikishin and Kira Smirnova (Moscow:

Vagrius, 2004), 48-52. 3. Kira Smirnova et al., Vodochnyi korol’ Petr Arsen’evich Smirnov i ego

potomki [The King of Vodka Petr Smirnov and his Descendants] (Moscow: OAO izdatel’stvo Raduga,

1999), 158-164. 4. Viktor Iuzefovich, Vadim Borisovskii – osnovatel’ sovetskoi al’tovoi shkoly [Vadim

Borisovskii – the Founder of the Soviet Viola School] (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1977), 124. 5.

Evgeniia Stoklitskaia, interview by the author, Moscow, August 23, 2010. Iuzefovich prepared his

book in close collaboration with Borisovskii’s widow, Aleksandra De-Lazari Dolli Borisovskaia (1904-

2004), who provided him with documents from the family archive. Only a recently published volume

of Borisovskii’s poetry ‘Zerkal volshebnyi krug’ contains an article by his widow, in which she

affirmed that Borisovskii was sacked from the Conservatoire three times during the purges. In

addition, this information is confirmed in the memoirs of Vladimir Petrovich Smirnov (1875-1934),

the third of thirteen children of Petr Smirnov (1831-1898), the founder of one of the wealthiest

Russian trade houses and vodka distilleries of the nineteenth century ‘Petr Smirnov’, known today

as the ‘Smirnoff’ brand. Vladimir fled Russia after the Socialist Revolution of 1917 and settled in

France, where he dictated his memoirs to his wife, Tat’iana Maksheeva, before his death in Nice.

The memoirs were edited and published only in 2004 by his daughter Kira Smirnova, who also

published her own book about her ancestors and the history of the family firm. These two books

reveal that Borisovskii was an illegitimate son of Aleksandra Smirnova, the youngest daughter of

Petr Smirnov. Reasonably, Borisovskii kept this fact undisclosed as both his father, Vasilii Nikolaevich

Bostandzhoglo, who was a wealthy tobacco merchant from the Old Believers’ family, a cousin of

Konstantin Stanislavskii and a talented ornithologist, the founder of the collection of the Zoological

Museum of the Moscow University, and his step-father, the merchant Martem’ian Nikanorovich

Borisovskii were shot by the Cheka in 1919. His mother lost her property and income and was

classified as ‘lishenka’ [disenfranchised], which meant that she was deprived by the Soviet

Constitution of 1918-1936 of all social rights, including employment, housing, rations, pension, and

the right to vote due to her bourgeois roots and, therefore, was fully dependent on her son. This

detailed information has not been published in any musicological sources before. Today, it justifies

Borisovskii’s inability to openly defend his professorship against the attack of the RAPM. Due to his

family roots, he automatically fell into the same disenfranchised group of people, who were under

repression even after 1936 when this category was officially eliminated. 136 Borisovskii was an author of more than 200 arrangements and transcriptions for the viola. Some

of them were published in limited editions in the USSR and the others still remain in manuscript.

86

accomplishments neither found recognition among the administration of the

Conservatoire at that time nor protected him personally from political oppression,

which consequently brought to a standstill his active collaborations with composers,

including Vasilenko. Thus, seven years later Borisovskii ran into serious trouble

because of the viola catalogue he had published with Dr Wilhelm Altmann, a

German researcher from Berlin. The growth of the absolute authority of Iosif Stalin

brought the time of despair that led to the purges. Gradually, Lenin’s ‘Old Guard’,

who played a key role in the Socialist Revolution of 1917, were either arrested or

‘promoted’ to prestigious but ineffectual positions. Thus, Anatolii Lunacharskii, the

main political adviser of this research catalogue and also a great admirer of

Vasilenko’s ballets137 was dismissed from his post as chief of the Central Research

Committee in 1933 and sent away from the capital and its political conflicts and

controversy. The liberal approach and a certain tolerance towards various cultural

matters he had maintained during his term of office came to an end. On 4 January

1938, Borisovskii was attacked in a Pravda article, ‘Podozritel’noe sodruzhestvo’

[Suspicious Partnership], by a music-critic Georgii Khubov,138 who accused him of

being a Nazi advocate – even though the catalogue of a solely musicological content

had been put together by December 1932, well before the Nazis came to power.

This catalogue was a significant publication for violists as it listed for the 137 In April 1926, Vasilenko became personally acquainted with Lunacharskii, who deeply admired

his ballet Iosif prekrasnyi [Joseph the Handsome] op. 50, 1925, and offered the plot for Vasilenko’s

next ballet Lola op. 52, 1926. It was staged under the close patronage of Lunacharskii. Reasonably,

Vasilenko included neither this information nor the fact that they became good acquaintances in his

books of memoirs and his article about Lunacharskii remained unpublished. Sergei Vasilenko,

Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 412, pp. 31-34. 138 In 1932-39, Georgii Nikitich Khubov (1902-81) occupied the high-status position of the Deputy

Editor of the leading magazine Sovetskaia muzyka [Soviet Music].

87

first time all known original and transcribed works for viola solo and for viola with

other instruments, a valuable source of viola research data even today, in the twenty-

first century. However, an article of a similar content that severely criticised

Borisovskii and his publication was prepared by the state publishing house Iskusstvo

[Art]. It is kept in RGALI in a form of a draft with no author’s name: ‘Borisovskii

was always indifferent to Soviet reality. […] His notorious individuality as an artist

was only the outer shell of his political isolation from the Soviet public.’139 An

official claim against Borisovskii was accepted for legal action and the file delivered

to the Kremlin for further investigation. It was passed on for the attention of

Viacheslav Molotov, a leading Soviet politician and a protégé of Stalin. Molotov’s

secretariat summoned Borisovskii to the Kremlin for a meeting where, fortunately,

the entire trumped-up charge was dismissed.140 Borisovskii was lucky to survive.

It was a lucky escape also for Vasilenko. Certainly, Vasilenko’s loyal public

reputation appealed to the Soviet authorities,141 but the composer’s professional

status and musical fulfilment of the Party ideology were of critical importance.

139 Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo ‘Iskusstvo’ [State Publishing House ‘Iskusstvo’], O politicheskoi

bespechnosti rukovoditelei Moskovskoi Konservatorii i drugikh organizatsii iskusstv [Regarding the

Political Carelessness of the Administration of the Moscow Conservatoire and Other Arts

Organisations]. Housed in RGALI, fund 672 (Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo ‘Iskusstvo’), op. 1, ed. khr.

1010, pp. 1-2. According to the context of the article, one may assume that it was written at the end

of the 1930s, the time when the purges reached a new peak. Perhaps this was the reason why the

author wanted to remain anonymous. 140 Kira Smirnova disclosed in her book that Borisovskii wrote a letter of explanation addressed

directly to Stalin that prompted the secretariat of Molotov to call Borisovskii for a meeting, at which

the case against him was dismissed. Further reference in: Kira Smirnova et al., Vodochnyi korol’ Petr

Arsen’evich Smirnov i ego potomki (Moscow: OAO izdatel’stvo Raduga, 1999), 161. 141 A detailed discussion of Vasilenko’s philanthropic activities that won the loyalty of the general

public is in the first chapter.

88

Thus, the subjects that interested him were considered suspect: ‘ancient’ music, with

its natural absorption of spirituality and the troubadours’ idealised model of love. It

was the same a decade or so later with the themes of his viola pieces of 1950s; their

pastoral dreams and fantasies influenced by Symbolism and the Silver Age aesthetic.

Such ideas contravened the limitations of Soviet ‘Socialist Realism’ and were not

officially tolerated in atheist Soviet society.142 Besides, Vasilenko had not only been

stung by the acerbic press, but was detained by the VCheKa143 in the Butyrskaia

prison in Moscow, which after 1917 housed political prisoners many of whom were

arrested and shot without trial. His archive has a certificate dated 7 November 1918

that confirms that ‘according to the order of the Cheka N1094 a citizen Vasilenko

was released from custody’.144 This incident that could have ended dreadfully has

not been mentioned in any publications. Today, it gives one a clue why in the

commentary to the 25 Anniversary Concert of Vasilenko’s professional activities in

1927 he, who before the revolution led a very active social and professional life, was

unexpectedly described as ‘an extremely shy and unsociable composer’, whose

music was rarely performed.145 This was Vasilenko’s temporary defence of his

inability to carve out a niche in Soviet society and its music industry.

142 For further information about Socialist Realism see footnote 114. 143 VCheKa (usually called Cheka) is an abbreviation of the Vserossiiskaia Chrezvychainaia Komissiia

[All Russian Emergency Commission], the first Soviet security organisation, the predecessor of the

KGB with unlimited powers. It was founded by Lenin’s decree in December 1917 in order to combat

counterrevolution and sabotage. 144 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, Al’bom dokumentov. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 788, p.

69. 145 Quoted in Vasilii Fedorov, Priglasitel’nye bilety, programmy spektaklei i kontsertov iz proizvedenii

S.N. Vasilenko [Invitation Tickets, Programmes of the Theatre Productions and Concerts Consisted of

Works by S.N. Vasilenko]. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 417, p. 1.

89

With the earlier viola works therefore under wraps, and Borisovskii unable to

perform them, Vasilenko turned instead to topics that were politically approved by

the Soviet state: stories of the Russian heroic past and present, folk traditions, and

folk instruments including the balalaika. One may say that he essentially followed

the advice given to him by Lunacharskii in the late 1920s: ‘I advise you to take plots

from Russian fairy tales. The censorship should be less picky.’146 Fortunately,

Vasilenko was interested in themes that did chime with the regime. For instance, the

Russian composers of the second half of the nineteenth century favoured by Stalin –

Tchaikovskii and Rimskii-Korsakov in particular – were also his heroes. In different

phases of his compositional career he was influenced by Russian folklore and

history, and Middle Eastern and oriental subjects (Japanese, Indian and Chinese

ones among them) – an outlook which coincided with the nationalist emphasis in

Communist ideology, which concealed its true nature behind the affirmation of the

national music of Russia and other nations of the Soviet republics.147 This stylistic

correspondence with the state doctrine clarifies why his score of the Oriental Dance

for clarinet and piano was published, though the viola version got lost.148 Most

important of all, Vasilenko was a cautious man and, heeding his own and

Borisovskii’s warnings, turned his attention away from objectionable subjects such

as the viola. He was to write nothing more for the instrument for almost three

decades. 146 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579,

op. 1, ed. khr. 412, p. 33. 147 Among Vasilenko’s major works based on the national music of the Soviet republics were the

first national Uzbek operas Buran [The Snow Storm] op. 98, 1938, and Velikii kanal [The Grand

Canal] op. 99, 1939, composed together with his former student and a fellow composer Mukhtar

Ashrafi. 148 The details of this publication are listed in the Table 2.2 above.

90

2.5 Late works of the early 1950s

The evolution of Vasilenko’s compositional and creative process is reflected in his

late viola pieces of 1951-1953 that remain in manuscript. Their style bears a closer

resemblance to Impressionism and Russian Symbolism with their challenging

application of string technique and complex modern rhythms with metric

modulations, extensive chromatic exercises and harmonic modulations.149 The Party

rejected these artistic trends as an expression of bourgeois society, as was discussed

in the previous subsection. This ideological prohibition explains why these pieces

were confined to archives until recently. The visual and narrative approach inspired

by the pre-revolutionary Silver Age aesthetic, of which more in the last chapter,

contributed to Vasilenko’s musical interpretation and to the enhancement of his

language.

These pieces stand as a marker of Vasilenko’s stylistic and instrumental

refinement. The technical demands, improvisatory character and the emphasis on

nuance and melodic expressiveness remind one of the transformations in

instrumental miniatures of Frederic Chopin, who in his turn took as his example

Johann Sebastian Bach. Certainly, the impressionistic vision, the importance of

colour, narrative and visual images were the influences of ‘The Five’, Debussy and

the Silver Age movement incorporated in these works. Tonal contrasts, metric and

rhythmic dispositions, a frequent usage of chromatic runs and an inventive approach

to the form accord with the musical innovations of the Avant-garde. These newly

discovered pieces are a fine enhancement of the viola concert repertoire.

149 For a brief review of the language and sources of these pieces see Appendix 3 ‘A brief review of

the language of the pieces of the early 1950s’.

91

2.6 Conclusion

In an unpublished transcript of a conversation between Vasilenko and his friend

Fedorov dated 5 November 1945, Vasilenko expressed his deep anxiety about the

quality and content of his works because of the Soviet demands of state assignments.

At the same time, he defended his right to compose the only way he felt proficient

and enjoyable regardless of any interference and accommodation to the opinion of

others.

[…] I know how to orchestrate. I am ranked among the best of our contemporaries,

though many young composers can orchestrate more or less. Everyone recognises

that my colouring is unrivalled. But all of this is only a technique! How about the

content? The content is needed. [...] No one should take advice during the process of

artistic creation. I have my own understanding and I write accordingly. You feel

differently and, therefore, express your feelings in your own way. Thus, I wrote an

orchestral suite ‘Ukraine’. [...] I had to compose it and I composed it. Let them say

that ‘it does not have a Ukrainian soul’, let them say that I ‘did not depict the river

Dnieper’. But I do answer for every single note. I cannot change it just because

someone feels this or that section differently. […]150

Perhaps Vasilenko’s frustration with his official compositional activities,

along with his political impartiality and the objectivity of an elderly man, who was

tired of writing music he had to rather than wanted to write, were the reasons why

Vasilenko approached the viola again a few years before his death and almost 30

150 Quoted in Vasilii Fedorov, Chernovye nabroski, vypiski iz dnevnikov. Sergei Vasilenko. Housed in

RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 22, p. 50. The suite Ukraine was completed on 23 September 1946

and consisted of four movements: 1. V stepiakh Ukrainy [In the Steppes of the Ukraine] 2. Leto.

Dnepr [Summer. Dnieper] 3. Nochnye dorogi. Partizany [Roads at Night. Partisans] 4. Prazdnik

[Holiday]. Its manuscript is housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 869.

92

years after his first application to this instrument. His viola works of the early 1950s

became Vasilenko’s “swan-songs”. They linked his musical interests of the pre-

revolutionary era with the last years of his life that reflected his love for the idyllic,

symbolic and picturesque world of images that he was forced to keep away from the

music industry. In particular his piece Sleeping River, which is his own arrangement

of his piano piece written in 1915, has something quite poignant and evocative of

the past in its musical expression.

A musicologist, Dmitrii Rogal’-Levitskii pointed to the distinctiveness of his

teacher’s musical language. In whatever period Vasilenko was writing, his works

reflect events in his personal life:

[…] In spite of the first impression of estrangement in his compositions from his

inner world and of a certain impersonal character, they all exist with his thoughts

and ideas. They are closely related to him and he himself lives on in them. […]151

This statement might sound meaningless to anyone who tries to interpret it

directly, but for a reader who has lived under Soviet restrictions and who fears for

his physical existence – as Rogal’-Levitskii then did – his words hint at a hidden

meaning. Vasilenko had to balance his language with the material from the lute

manuscripts to make the outcome stylistically close to past times but also

communicable to a twentieth-century audience.152 His stylisation is laconic and

effective. Nevertheless, the austere simplicity and ominous harmonic language in the

Pavane and especially of the Madonna Tenerina are reminiscent of the Russian Old

151 Dmitrii Rogal’-Levitskii, Sergei Vasilenko i ego al’tovaia sonata [Sergei Vasilenko and his Viola

Sonata] (Moscow: Muzykal’nyi sektor muzizdata, 1927), 6–7. 152 A detailed discussion of the lute pieces may be found in the third chapter.

93

Believers’ chant – unembellished monodic singing with minimal melodic expression

– in which Vasilenko showed particular interest before the Revolution.153 He could

not reveal his continued fascination for symbolic and religious subjects during

Soviet times (even if he briefly mentions it in his memoirs),154 although their

concealed influence continues to live on in his works. Fortunately, Vasilenko’s

little-known and newly discovered viola compositions are not restricted by any

authoritarian decree to archives and libraries anymore. The following chapters

provide a thorough analysis of these works and their stylistic peculiarities, which

will assist their future performers, and researchers of Vasilenko’s music.

153 Further discussion of the Old Believers’ chants in Vasilenko’s language may be found in the

subsection ‘Old Believers’ practices and chants and their role in Vasilenko’s musical expression’ in

the fifth chapter. 154 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1948), 105–112.

94

Chapter Three

Early music arrangements for viola and piano by Sergei Vasilenko

3.1 Interest in historical instruments

Vasilenko was well established as a public figure and a composer who extensively

employed Russian subjects in his music. What was the reason for his interest in the

Baroque and Renaissance? Certainly, the initial causes of this undertaking were the

activities of Vasilenko as a conductor and organiser of the series of the ‘Historic

Concerts’ in 1907-1917, in which the programmes ranged from music of the

fifteenth - seventeenth centuries to the music of Vasilenko’s contemporaries,

including Skriabin and Richard Strauss.155 This concert project was very successful

and these performances of early music became the focus of public attention and of

the press.156

Wanda Landowska must have had a significant influence on Vasilenko’s

growing appreciation for early music, though he did not specify this in his writings.

Her active role in reviving the popularity of the harpsichord as a performer and 155 The lists of concert programmes of the ‘Historic Concerts’ can be found only in archives: 1.

Programmy ‘Istoricheskikh kontsertov’ pod upravleniem Vasilenko, 1909-1910 [Programmes of the

‘Historic Concerts’ Conducted by Vasilenko]. Housed in RGALI, fund 2012 (Shebalin, Vissarion

Iakovlevich), op. 5, ed. khr. 69, pp. 1-17. 2. Sergei Vasilenko, Pis’ma Sergeiu Taneevu [Letters to

Sergei Taneev]. Housed in RGALI, fund 880 (Taneevy), op. 1, ed. khr. 147, pp. 3-7. 3. Programmy

simfonicheskikh kontsertov pod upravleniem Vasilenko, 1907-1915 [Programmes of the Symphonic

Concerts Conducted by Vasilenko]. Housed in RGALI, fund 1720 (Zviagintseva, Vera Klavdievna), op.

1, ed. khr. 525, pp. 1-108. 4. Programmy kontsertov s uchastiem Vasilenko, 1907-1937 [Programmes

of the Concerts with Vasilenko’s Participation]. Housed in RGALI, fund 993 (Kollektsiia teatral’nykh

programm) [Collection of Theatre Programmes], op. 1, ed. khr. 81, 82, 93. 156 For further reference to the reaction of the public and the press see the first chapter and below

in this chapter.

95

professor and her dedication to the scholarly research of early music were

indisputable.157 From 1907 until 1914, Landowska undertook annual concert tours to

Russia, including her solo performances at the ‘Historic Concerts’ in Moscow,

which were warmly received by the audience.158 In addition, Landowska

unreservedly assisted Vasilenko in arranging and finding suitable programmes of the

early music period for his concert series, supplying him with appropriate references

to the curators of European musical archives, giving valuable advice on Vasilenko’s

arrangements of early music and providing him with the scores of works that she

discovered and researched herself.159 One may say that Vasilenko followed her steps

in his exploration and study of the archival collections of early music.

The collection of early music at the Moscow Conservatoire Library, which

Vasilenko used for his concerts, was very limited in scope and soon ran out. None of

the individual compositions or programmes was performed twice in these series and,

therefore, he was constantly in search of new interesting music. He researched in

157 Wanda Landowska was the first Professor of harpsichord at the Berlin Hochschule für Musik [the

Berlin Conservatoire] in 1912-1919 and, in 1925, she founded the Ecole de Musique Ancienne [the

School of Early Music], a performing and teaching centre of early music, at first in Paris and then at

her home. Landowska continued this performing, teaching and research work throughout her life,

which resulted in numerous recordings, monographs and music editions. Further reference in: 1.

Martin Elste, Die Dame mit dem Cembalo: Wanda Landowska und die Alte Musik [The Lady with the

Cembalo: Wanda Landowska and Early Music] (Mainz: Schott Music, 2010). 2. Michael Latcham,

“Don Quixote and Wanda Landowska: Bells and Pleyels,” Early Music 1 vol. 34 (2006): 95-110. 3.

Vladimir Shekalov, Wanda Landowska i vozrozhdenie klavesina [Wanda Landowska and the Revival

of the Harpsichord] (St. Petersburg: Kanon, 1999). 4. Denise Restout, ed. and trans., Landowska on

Music (New York: Stein & Day, 1969). 158 Further reference in: Vladimir Shekalov, Wanda Landowska i vozrozhdenie klavesina (St.

Petersburg: Kanon, 1999), 103-137. 159 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed.

khr. 411, p. 4.

96

archives in Vienna, Bologna, Berlin and Milan. The Berlin Staatliches Institut für

Musikforschung [the Musical Instrument Museum]160 and its rich collection of lutes

generated Vasilenko’s initial interest in these instruments during his visit in

February-March 1910 and also in 1913, when he was accompanied by Wanda

Landowska and her husband.161 He was allowed to copy the scores of a number of

little-known and anonymous Renaissance and Baroque composers and on his return

to Russia he wrote several pieces of his own based on the material he had

discovered, among them, in 1912 and 1914, two suites: Fifteenth – Sixteenth

Centuries Lute Music of the Minnesingers, op. 24, and Sixteenth Century Lute

Music, op. 24a, for chamber orchestra and, in 1918, Four Pieces on Themes of Lute

Music of the Sixteenth - Seventeenth Centuries, op. 35, for viola (or ‘cello) and

piano.

In thirty years, on 3 August 1948, Vasilenko’s friend Sergei Shambinago

claimed in a private conversation with Vasilii Fedorov that Vasilenko did not

research any archives in person, but ordered and received all copies of early music

from various publications by post.162 Today, since both opponents who could have

160 Das Berliner Musikinstrumenten-Museum, Musikinstrumenten-Museum, http://www.mim-

berlin.de (accessed February 26, 2012). This museum was founded in 1888 by Philipp Spitta and

Joseph Joachim and is still open to the public. The author of this thesis visited this museum in

person in August 2011. Not only today, but also at the time of Vasilenko’s visits, its collection of

historical instruments was one of the finest in Europe competing with the similar collections in Paris

and Brussels, which initially inspired its founders. 161 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed.

khr. 411, p. 4. Vasilenko did not include in his books of memoirs the fact that he stayed with the

Landowska family in Berlin in 1913. Very likely, he feared being unjustly accused of being a Nazi

supporter as was Borisovskii in 1938. Further details about the Borisovskii case are in chapter two,

in the subsection ‘Reasons for the neglect of Vasilenko’s viola works during his lifetime’. 162 Vasilii Fedorov, Chernovye nabroski, vypiski iz dnevnikov. Sergei Vasilenko. Housed in RGALI, fund

http://www.mim-berlin.de/

http://www.mim-berlin.de/

97

answered this query are long ago deceased, the question as to whether this statement

is a false accusation becomes secondary. In any case, Vasilenko did not conceal that

certain music material he did indeed obtain by post, in particular the suite Zodiakus,

of which more in the subsection ‘Sources of the suite Zodiakus’ below. Most

important of all, these music sources were of inestimable value in both instrumental

and scholarly terms, regardless of the means of their acquisition, because

Vasilenko’s fine arrangements boosted public interest and raised awareness of this

musical epoch.

The leading Moscow critics highly praised these works; besides, ‘early’

music was virtually unknown in Russian musical circles at the time. Among

especially admired movements were two pieces based on the music material by

anonymous fifteenth-century composers: the exquisitely melodious Madonna

Tenerina dated 1400163 as well as an energetic and rough Allegro, which Vasilenko

entitled Knights.

2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 22, p. 52. These rather unfavourable and nit-picking comments referred to

Vasilenko’s memoirs published in 1948. Shambinago affirmed that he travelled abroad together

with Vasilenko and in Bologna, for instance, they stayed only one day mostly for recreation. Very

likely, such contradictory remarks had various motives, including Shambinago’s eccentric character

as an elderly man of 77, who died three months later, in November 1948, and who was likely to

exaggerate particular facts about his old friend. Likewise, this disparity between the sources could

have been a simple lack of accuracy in the plot of the first book of memoirs, which revealed only

selected details of Vasilenko’s biography. According to Vasilenko’s diaries, which were partly

transferred into his second book of memoirs published in 1979, he did travel abroad very often, but

was not always accompanied by Shambinago. Further details about the memoirs are in the

subsection ‘Vasilenko’s memoirs’ in the first chapter. 163 Sergei Vasilenko, “Istoricheskie kontserty simfonicheskoi muzyki. Otryvok iz vospominanii [The

Historic Concerts of Symphonic Music. Passages from Reminiscences],” Sovetskaia muzyka [Soviet

Music] 2 (1947): 24-25.

98

The centre of the programme of the next of Vasilenko’s Historic Concerts was the

performance of lute music of the Minnesingers. […] Vasilenko’s contribution is

immense. He dug out this precious objet d’art, arranged it and made it performable

in our contemporary setting. Many musicians were amazed to learn about the

existence of this completely unknown musical stratum [...]. ‘Madonna Tenerina’ is a

truly exceptional work not only for its time but also for a later period. […]164

Vasilenko admitted that he was no musicologist,165 and in any case there was

hardly any information available to him about this period though he intensively

researched all available Russian and overseas publications in an attempt to fill gaps

in his knowledge. He referred to the originals of these often inconsistent melodic

fragments as lute music only because no other instrument was mentioned in his

sources. In his memoirs Vasilenko revealed how difficult these arrangements were

to make:

[…] The original was often a long, tedious and inconclusive improvisation with

interruptions and without any cadencies or clear rhythmical structure. These were

the losses of the time or perhaps the mistakes of later copyists. Often, there were

musical phrases and sections of amazing beauty, but they were like precious pearls

hidden behind other ideas not only of a lesser value, but often uninteresting and

unconnected with the previous context. My aim was to give special emphasis to the

beauty of many episodes by giving them a well-defined modern structure, but

without changing the general style and harmony of the originals. My work was

confined to the following: to repeate musical phrases, sometimes even whole

164 Leonid Sabaneev, “Kontserty [Concerts],” Golos Moskvy [The Voice of Moscow], October 23,

1912, Razdel kontserty [Section: Concerts]. 165 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979),

306.

99

sections, then add occasional cadances and, finally, orchestrate. […]166

Suite op. 24a was in many ways a revised version of the suite op. 24. In this

later edition, Vasilenko gave titles to unnamed pieces, including the last piece,

Knights, and slightly changed the order of works and orchestration.167

3.2 The language of ‘Four Pieces on Themes of Lute Music of the Sixteenth -

Seventeenth Centuries’, op. 35

Vasilenko’s continuous search for reconstruction of timbres and sound effects

similar to those of the early period led him to consider using viola (or ‘cello) and

piano for his cycle op. 35, 1918. The second, third and fourth movements –

Madonna Tenerina, Serenade for the Lady of my Heart and Knights - Vasilenko

borrowed from the orchestral suites op. 24/24a and the opening Pavane came from

the photostats that had arrived from Paris in 1913.168 The authors of the music

material used in the pieces op. 35 were anonymous apart from the Fantasia that

Vasilenko renamed the Serenade for the Lady of my Heart169 autographed by

166 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979),

306-307. 167 Vasilenko’s titles not only vary between versions (see Appendix 2); they are inconsistent across

the sources. Vasilenko also pays little regard to historical accuracy: the minnesingers flourished

from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries, and two of the movements of the Sixteenth-Century

Lute Music, op. 24a, and the Sixteenth – Seventeenth-Centuries Lute Music, op. 35, have their origins

in the fifteenth century. 168 More information about this source may be found in the subsection ‘Sources of the suite

Zodiakus’. 169 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979), 307.

100

Valentin Bakfark, a famous lute player of the mid-sixteenth century about whose life

little was then known.170

The analysis of this cycle below exposes the attention to detail, mathematical

and, at the same time, innovative and creative approach of Vasilenko to the form,

structure and subject-matter of his compositions, which are important for any

performer in order to comprehend and feel a composition as a whole. Vasilenko was

a true student of his teacher of composition and counterpoint, Sergei Taneev, whom

he consulted about the orchestral editions of these early music arrangements. Taneev

was always credited for his exquisite knowledge and feeling for forms but criticized

for being too academic, dreary and uninspiring.171 Vasilenko remembered that

Taneev strongly required pure forms and a mathematical precision of bar symmetry

from his students’ compositional exercises, often in favour of an interesting and

elegant theme or harmonisation.172 On the contrary, Vasilenko managed to combine

the accuracy of structures influenced by his teacher, with his own inventiveness in

forms, harmony, beautiful and inspirational melodic work.173 It is important to

170 More recent scholarship has not been able to add much more. Bakfark, called Bálint Bakfark in

Hungarian (he was ethnically German), was born in Brassó (Kronstadt) in Transylvania (now Braşov

in Romania) in 1507 and served at a number of European courts, eventually becoming one of the

highest paid musicians of his day. He and his family died in Padua in 1576, in an outbreak of plague.

Further reference in: Ivan F. Waldbauer, “Bálint Bakfark,” in Stanley Sadie, ed., The New Grove

Dictionary of Music and Musicians in Twenty Volumes (London: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 1980),

vol. 2, 46-47. 171 Grigorii Bernandt, Sergei Ivanovich Taneev (Moscow: Muzyka, 1983), 74-82. 172 Sergei Vasilenko, Gody obshcheniia s S.I. Taneevym [The Years of Collaboration with S.I. Taneev].

Housed in RGALI, fund 2465 (Institut Istorii Iskusstv) [The Institute of History of Arts], op. 1, ed. khr.

939, p. 17. 173 The exact proportion of Vasilenko’s input into the original material is unknown. One can only rely

on Vasilenko’s own surviving reminiscences. For further reference see footnote 166.

101

analyse the movements of the lute pieces op. 35 to find out how unpredictably

Vasilenko combined traditional attributes of that period with his own ideas.

3.2.1 Pavane

The Pavane follows the traditional pattern: a slow court dance in 4/4 meter with a

characteristic rhythmic pattern in both instrumental parts of minim-crochet-crochet.

This first piece has a sectional setting with eight bars consisting of two repeated

four-bar motifs in almost every section, which bring a sense of balance and

regularity to the structure. However, it is a through-composed structure with some

elements of a simple ternary form, because of the return of altered sections in the

third part. Vasilenko experimented with this final part, making two attempts to finish

the piece, which produce unpredictability and lack of conformity to the equally

proportioned setting of the first two parts. This is seen in Table 3.2.1 below.

Table 3.2.1 Sectional division with bar numbers and keys in the Pavane

Pavane in 4/4 (common time)

Parts and

Tempo

indications

I

Andantino grazioso

II

Marcare la

melodia

III

Tempo I

Sections A + A1 B + B1 C + C1 D+ D1 A2 +B + B1 A3

Bar

numbers

1

(introduction)

/4+4/4+4

4+4/

4+4

8/8 8 (4+4)/

8 (4+4)

4+4/4+4/

4+6

4+3/12

102

Keys174

D D/ D

D-Bm/

D-Bm

G-C-G/

G-Am

(2nd time

G-A)

D/D/D-F#-

Em-D

IV6-V to

Bm

D-Em-

D-

Em/D

The first recapitulation has sections A2, B and a slightly extended and altered

B1 with modulations that are concluded by a Phrygian half cadence to B minor. The

following second recapitulation brings back D major and re-establishes through

modulations and secondary dominant chords175 the significance of the once again

altered theme A that is followed by the concluding phrase on the tonic pedal point.

Both instrumental parts are equal partners in the continuing dialogue of themes

throughout the piece, with which Vasilenko actively modulated to distantly related

and unrelated tonalities, especially in the second and third movements, often

creating unusual tonal colour and contrast. However, the tonal equilibrium is

maintained due to the predominance of the main key D major that Vasilenko

preserved throughout the piece with an exception of sections D/D1, though their

concluding A major works as the dominant to D major of the following section A2.

The theme of section A is very simple in harmony. It has a melody in

conjunct motion that follows only four steps E, F#, G and A on the tonic triad D

major in the bass. Moreover, this simplicity continues further with an almost

complete absence of embellishments or even trills in the whole piece with an

174 A key with ‘m’ stands for minor and without ‘m’ for major in this table and the following tables

below. 175 A secondary dominant chord (dominant of the dominant) is a dominant chord that resolves to a

degree other than the tonic. This temporary tonic or degree is the dominant of another key. One

may call this harmonic technique a temporary modulation, in which the new key is not established.

103

exception of three bars in the piano at the beginning of section D1. Similar melodic

plainness and austerity of texture are executed in the second piece.

3.2.2 Madonna Tenerina

A slow pavane was traditionally followed by a galliard, an energetic dance in six.

Instead, Vasilenko included the Madonna Tenerina, a tender song-type piece with

an exceptionally beautiful melody as if it depicts a moment of religious prayer

though this purely instrumental composition has no text for this imaginative sacred

ceremony. The mood of this first melody explains the decision of Vasilenko to give

this piece such a title, which points to its likely Italian origin.176 The viola leads the

themes accompanied by the piano that in its turn takes the lead only twice, in the

second half of the first theme.

Table 3.2.2 Sectional division with bar numbers and keys in the Madonna

Tenerina

Madonna Tenerina in 4/4 (common time)

Tempo

indications

Andante misterioso Piu

agitato

Poco piu

mosso.

Dolcissimo

Tempo I

Sections introduction A B C A conclusion

Bar

numbers

4 7+7 7+7+1 9+9+1 7+7+1 4

176 Further discussion of the sources of Vasilenko’s artistic inspiration and the plainness and austere

minimalism of the first theme is in chapter five, in the subsection ‘Old Believers’ practices and

chants and their role in Vasilenko’s musical expression’.

104

Keys Gm Gm Gm F Gm Gm

As it is seen from Table 3.2.2 above, Vasilenko slightly amended this

supposedly non-repetitive structure. Section C preserved a major mode and, thus,

added to the musical character the elegance and eagerness of hope. The

recapitulation of section A and the conclusion, which is a replica of the introduction,

bring back the solemn and ascetic mood of the beginning of the piece playing the

role of a bridge between the sections. Thus, it is a through-composed composition

with the elements of a simple ternary form.

A music critic, Sergei Bugoslavskii, writing in 1923 about another

composition of Vasilenko based on early music sources, Starinnye ital’ianskie pesni

liubvi XVII veka [Old Italian Love Songs of the Seventeenth Century] for voice and

piano without an opus number, observed that Vasilenko’s interpretation of ‘a simple

church-type harmony reminds one that [...] love was an eternal and beautiful

religion’.177 These words correlate with the tone and atmosphere depicted in the

Madonna Tenerina.

3.2.3 Serenade for the Lady of my Heart

The third piece, Serenade for the Lady of my Heart, is a pure love song-type piece or

ballade with an emotionally unrestrained lyric character indicated in the tempo Con

moto espressivo that changes only in section D, marked Piu mosso. Scherzando.

This piece is another through-composed structure with self-contained sections, but

177 Sergei Bugoslavskii, “Izdaniia. Sergei Vasilenko [Publications. Sergei Vasilenko],” Teatr i muzyka

[Theatre and Music] 1-2(1923): 424.

105

without any re-appearance of the first theme at the end of the composition as it was

in the Madonna Tenerina. Vasilenko again experimented with the form and included

the altered section B after section C that provides a sense of certain connection

between these independent sections. This is seen in Table 3.2.3 below.

Table 3.2.3 Sectional division and keys in the Serenade for the Lady of my Heart

Serenade for the Lady of my Heart in 4/4 (common time)

Sections A B C B1 D E conclusion

Bar

numbers

12+12 4+4 10+12 4+4 5+5 5+5 10

Keys Dm-Am Am C-Am-

C

Am F/F-

Dm

F Dm-Gm-

D

The general imbalance between the sections, continuous tonal contrast

throughout the piece and especially the change of D minor178 at the beginning to D

major at the end of the piece are also new features, as the previous two pieces

preserved their main keys and had evenly proportioned sections. The balance is

maintained within the sections and brings symmetry to the piece as a whole. The

piano part has mostly an accompanying role.179 However, the first part of section C

178 Vasilenko changed the key of the original musical material from F minor to D minor. Further

reference in: Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor,

1979), 307. 179 The first arpeggiated chords of the piano remind one of a gusli player from an opera Sadko by

Rimskii-Korsakov. Gusli is an old Russian multi-string plucked instrument derived from the ancient

lyre. It was used by wandering musicians and entertainers to accompany songs similar to those of

the minnesingers in medieval Europe. Gusli is associated with the legendary Boian, a singer of tales

from the ancient Slavic epic poem The Tale of Igor’s Campaign, which was adapted by Aleksandr

Borodin as an opera.

106

presents a big piano solo, whilst in sections D and E both instruments

simultaneously play the themes with an intensive harmonic display in the piano part

with modulations and secondary dominants. This textural thickness is a new feature

compared to the fineness and transparency of the first two movements. Furthermore,

for the first time in this cycle, Vasilenko used a number of ornaments and trills,

which embellished the atmosphere of a dramatic human love story with a happy

ending. These narrative qualities of the music are not only represented in the title of

the piece but are also observed in the instrumental interpretation steadily enriched by

Vasilenko according to the development of this imaginative storyline.180 This route

is continued in the final piece of the cycle.

3.2.4 Knights

The fourth piece, Knights, is a forceful and energetic dance in 3/4. The tonal contrast

here is achieved through unexpected modulations and secondary dominants, which

one may say are distinctive harmonic rudiments of this cycle. As in the previous

pieces, this music encompasses visual imaginative qualities. In his memoirs,

Vasilenko described the theme of section D that comes without tempo changes, but

is marked dolce, as ‘a church-type melody’.181

180 Further details on narrative qualities in this cycle are in the conclusion below. 181 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979),

307.

107

Table 3.2.4 Sectional division with bar numbers and keys in the Knights

Knights in 3/4

Parts

and

Tempos

I

Allegro energico

II III

Tempo I dolce Piu

mosso

Section A B C A D E A B Coda

Bar

numbers

2/6+7 2+2+

4+4

2+2+4 8 4+4+4+4+

4+8

10 7 2+2

+4+

4

2+2+2

+3+4

Total 2 (introduction) +41 Total 38 Total 32

Keys A D F# m-

E-C#m-

F#m

(2nd

time E)

A A (V pedal

point)-Bm-

D-Em-Bm-

A (V pedal

point)-Bm

A (V

pedal

point)

A D A

As it is seen in Table 3.2.4 above, this piece is written in a through-

composed form that has the components of a ternary form characteristic of a later

classical structure, with the re-appearance of Part One, though slightly modified. It

also has an internal sequence of self-contained themes and sections within each part,

similar to those in the previous three pieces. Consequently, it concurrently blends

the elements of cyclical and temporal developments, which was unconventional for

this type of composition. However, the parts within the whole piece are reasonably

balanced, although this composition does not have that pure symmetry of sections,

108

the best examples of which Vasilenko demonstrated in the first two pieces of this

cycle. The recapitulation of sections A and B from Part One with a connecting

episode at the end of the contemplative theme in Part Two link the contrasting

musical material together.

One may conclude that Vasilenko enhanced the conventional rhetoric with

unanticipated modulations to unrelated and distantly related keys that produced

distinctive tonal and timbre contrasts in this suite. The composer combined

traditional ternary forms with through-composed structures that engendered

unconformity within equally proportioned internal structures. This changeability and

impulsiveness placed special focus on emotive and visual facets of the music. Their

impact on stylistic and performing issues will be discussed in separate subsections

below as Vasilenko showed a similar approach in the suite Zodiakus.

3.3 Sources of the suite Zodiakus

The suite Zodiakus was initially arranged by Vasilenko for small orchestra, as with

op. 24 and op. 24a, and premiered under his baton in Moscow on 18 December

1914. In his memoirs Vasilenko gave an interesting account of how he acquired the

manuscript of this work, which he used as a source of the suite. In 1913, Henri

Casadesus, the violist and founder of the famous quintet Société des Instruments

Anciens, recommended that Vasilenko write to the Schola Cantorum in Paris,182

asking for some interesting manuscripts of early music. The reply, in July 1913, was

polite but rather terse: Vasilenko was sent photostats of four manuscripts of

182 Schola Cantorum, Schola Cantorum, http://www.Schola-Cantorum.com (accessed February 20,

2012). The school was founded in 1894 and was unusual at the time in its emphasis on early and

instrumental music as the Paris Conservatoire courses were dominated by the operatic repertoire.

http://www.schola-cantorum.com/

109

anonymous early composers with a note requesting copies of his orchestrations. The

tone of the second letter from Paris was rather different:

Dear Sir,

We received your score and understand that we are dealing with a true Master of the

orchestra. We are sending you a copy of a very rare manuscript, only recently

discovered. […]183

This new manuscript contained a series of short but exquisitely elegant

pieces by a number of anonymous eighteenth-century French composers, hidden

behind a peculiar pseudonym, Zodiakus I.A.S.184 Vasilenko chose seven of these

pieces for his orchestral suite op. 27 and this composition, too, received high praise

from Paris.185

The undated arrangement for viola and piano without an opus number –

previously unknown – includes four pieces from the orchestral suite and also a new

one, Musette, from the same original Parisian source.186 This viola work is not

mentioned in any published or archival sources. One may suppose that it was

composed after 1931 as Borisovskii did not include this suite into his viola catalogue

published in Germany. At the same time, it is unlikely that Vasilenko worked on this

arrangement later than the early 1930s, when his compositional activities were


330. 184 The meaning of the initials remains unknown. 185 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979),

330. 186 The viola version drops the word ‘French’ which features in the title of the orchestral version,

and which Vasilenko also used to describe the material in his memoirs.

110

preoccupied with the subject-matter of the Soviet past and present, Turkmen themes,

Chinese and Indian exoticism.187

3.4 The language and form in the Zodiakus

This viola suite consists of five contrasting movements of dance and song-type

pieces: Ouverture, Passacaille, Menuet, Plainte and Musette.188 Technically the

Zodiakus is much more demanding and instrumentally inconvenient than the lute

pieces, and occasionally it borders on being unplayable on the viola. This cycle

presented Vasilenko as a master of stylization. He generally followed the style and

idioms of the eighteenth-century French suite, but at the same time, operated freely

with some elements of the twentieth-century language, including excessive usage of

double-stops, experiments with polyrhythm and occasional unusual modulations

offering an unconventional tonal display of movements unrelated by key (F major, F

major, A major, A minor, G major). The viola part is often active in the higher part

of its register, which was far from typical for the Baroque period – but for a good

reason: the author of this thesis was fortunate to find this unused manuscript of

Vasilenko in the collection of music from the library of the violist Vadim

Borisovskii,189 and it is reasonable to conclude that this arrangement was intended

187 According to Vasilenko’s archive, the last public performance of his orchestral suite Zodiakus and

the lute suite with Vasilenko as a conductor took place in Moscow on 2 December 1928, which

points out that he approached these works at the turn of the 1930s. Sergei Vasilenko, Al’bom

dokumentov. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr. 788, p. 82. 188 All titles of the movements in the manuscript are given in French. 189 Due to the political circumstances discussed in detail in the subsection ‘Reasons for the neglect

of Vasilenko’s viola works during his lifetime’ in the second chapter, Borisovskii had to be very

selective and careful in his choice of repertoire. The Zodiakus of Vasilenko did not fulfil the stylistic

111

for him. For these reasons it would be logical to focus in particular on structural and

instrumental challenges and innovations that this suite offers to its performers and

compare them with the lute pieces.

3.4.1 Ouverture

The opening Ouverture (Overture) follows the traditional French form originating in

the sixteenth - seventeenth centuries in the ballets de cour [a court ballet]. This

movement is divided by a double bar-line into two parts - slow and fast - that

supplement each other. The first part is marked Sostenuto e maestoso, in which

Vasilenko pursued a conventional approach with dotted rhythms throughout the

section that he concluded with a regular half-cadence. The contrasting section

Allegro is written in a contrapuntal style, typical of this form. It is repeated twice;

the first time it ends on a half-cadence to F major and the final time on the tonic.

Both sections written in 4/4 (common time) are fairly balanced with 25 bars in total

in the first and 29 bars in the second. Vasilenko maintained a transparent tonal

display of F major with occasional modulations to the dominant key C major and D

minor.

This traditionalism is challenged in instrumental parts and, in particular, in

the viola part with some uncharacteristic technical elements for this period. The

composer extensively used double stops with numerous suspensions and passing

notes in both sections, with which he enriched the melody led by the viola. The thick

texture of chords and almost continuous passages of double-stops embellished with

occasional trills in the first part correspond to its grand royal character, whereas the requirements of the Party ideology, which might have been the reason for Borisovskii’s neglect of

this suite.

112

brisk tempo and the usage of the high register in the second part highlight its lively

and vibrant character. The Ouverture is technically very difficult not only because of

extensive usage of the high register and double-stops. Most of the time, the part is

instrumentally inconvenient and, consequently, demands extra precision and

refinement of execution.190 These instrumental intricacies, unnecessary and

avoidable at times, may partly explain the inattention to this work by Borisovskii.191

This certain inaccuracy in the text also indicates that this manuscript did not have

any basic corrections by a composer, which he would have instantly put in if this

composition had been rehearsed and prepared for a performance.

3.4.2 Passacaille

In French court ballets, an overture was usually followed by a series of dances that

played the role of an interlude before a ballet.192 The Passacaille (Passacaglia), a set

of four variations on a melodic bass pattern in triple time 3/4 of a serious character,

follows the opening Ouverture in this suite. Vasilenko followed a traditional

framework of short sequences of chords that outline perfect full and interrupted

cadence formulas. The tonal plan has a distinguishing feature of modulating to

closely and distantly related keys, often using secondary dominants as it was in the

lute cycle, with the return to the home key F major in almost each variation, which is

seen in Table 3.4.2 below.

190 Further discussion of instrumental issues is in the subsection ‘Performing issues’. 191 Further information on this subject may be found in the subsection ‘Reasons for neglect of

Vasilenko’s viola works during his lifetime’ in the second chapter. 192 Further reference in: 1. Edmund Fairfax, The Styles of Eighteenth Century Ballet (Lanham,

Maryland: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2003), 81-189. 2. Richard Taruskin, Music in the Seventeenth and

Eighteenth Centuries (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 91-92.

113

Table 3.4.2 Sectional division with bar numbers, dynamics and keys in the

Passacaille

Passacaille

Sections Tempo

indications

Dynamics Keys Bar numbers

Theme Moderato piano/pianissimo F major 1 introduction,

7+7=15

Variation 1 Moderato pianissimo,

espressivo

Gm-Dm/

F-Dm-F

4+4/+6=14

Variation 2 A tempo piano C/F-Dm 8/+8+4=20

Variation 3 Accelerando e

crescendo

forte Am/Dm 8/+4+4=16

Variation 4 Accelerando e

crescendo

fortissimo, piano

dolce

Dm-F/Dm 7/+5=12

Theme (da

capo)

Moderato piano/pianissimo F major 7+7=14

The variations have irregular bar numbers, and the sections, apart from

Variations Two and Three, are enclosed by double bar-lines. In Variation Three

Vasilenko exercised sequences of ascending double-stops, chord and scalic passages

that correspond to the more irregular flow of music. He started the Passacaille with

simple variations of a short ostinato motif, moving on to increasingly complex ones,

which impart a sense of continuous development and progression within the form,

but concluded the piece with a da capo to the opening section. This recapitulation

114

and return of the home key bring a sense of balance to the temporal development of

variations and, consequently, engenders elements of a cyclical development. Similar

unconventional principles are encountered in the lute pieces.

This fusion of developments entails closer sound balance, creativity in

dynamic context and closer collaboration between the two performers. Vasilenko

used the principle of canon, in which the piano takes the lead and starts the first

motif, and the viola, the follower, imitates the leader with exact repetition of

rhythms and intervals. The significant number of dynamic indications of crescendo

and diminuendo throughout this movement, mainly in piano and pianissimo,

necessitate a thorough control of phrasing. Vasilenko kept this equal interaction of

instruments steady. Gradually this imitation develops into more complex

contrapuntal language when two instruments not only move independently, as in

Variation Four, but oppose each other as in Variation Three. The dynamics abruptly

transform here with accelerando in tempi enriched with crescendo that reach forte

and fortissimo. This instrumental insubordination is deepened by polyrhythm with

syncopations in the piano part, accents, thicker texture in the viola part with chord

and unresolved interval progressions based on minor seconds and sevenths, perfect

fourths and fifths as well as octaves that ascend further and further up the register

reaching D6.193 The outcome is instrumentally more convenient than in the first

piece, though the interval sequences in the highest register in Variation Three

require technical proficiency and aural precision.

193 The pitch notation of the Acoustical Society of America is used in this thesis, in which C4 refers to

the middle C.

115

3.4.3 Menuet

The third piece is a Menuet (Minuet). Traditionally it consisted of two sections of

eight bars each. This minuet is slightly extended. It is written in a rounded binary or

minuet form ABA, in which part A is in A major and part B is a contrasting trio in

C# minor that is followed by exact repetition of the first part. All three parts have a

perfect symmetry of four sections with eight bars in each section in 3/4. The tonal

plan does not expose any unconventional approaches as it retains the dominance of

the home key A major with occasional modulations to relative major and minor keys

A major-F# minor and C# minor-E major. The viola leads the theme in part A,

which Vasilenko embellished with trills and grace notes and combined arco

episodes with responses played pizzicato. However, this instrumental disposition

changes in trio, where the pianist takes the lead and the violist accompanies with

harmonics and pizzicato phrases in the highest register. Only in the last eight bars of

this part the viola joins the piano on equal terms and gradually takes a full control of

the melodic line ornamented with appoggiaturas, trills and acciaccaturas. This

instrumental enhancement with combinations of pizzicato, harmonics and arco

episodes added extra timbre effects and colours to this otherwise perfect replica of a

traditional minuet.

3.4.4 Plainte

The fourth piece, Plainte (Plaint), is a very intimate movement with a beautiful

simple melody with the character of a lament. It is written in 3/4 in a through-

composed form with fairly balanced sections, which are seen in Table 3.4.4 below.

Its tender sad melody gradually breaks into short motifs and becomes more

expressive, gaining dramatic qualities. Section E, which is an extensively modified

116

version of section A, brings back the solemn grief and lamentation of the opening

section.

Table 3.4.4 Sectional division with bar numbers, dynamics and keys in the

Plainte

Plainte

Sections Tempo

indications

Dynamics Keys Bar numbers

in total

Introduction Lento

affettuoso

pianissimo Am 4

A A tempo piano Am-G/Dm 8 (2+2+4)+

8 (2+2+4)=16

B A tempo piano, molto

espressivo

Am/Dm-

Am

8(2+2+4)+

8 (2+2+4)=16

C Piu mosso mp, drammatico Am-Dm-

C-Dm

12

D Piu mosso forte, crescendo Am-C-

Dm-C/Am

12+4=16

E (A1) Tempo I pianissimo Am-G/

Dm-C

8+6=14

Postlude/conclusion Allargando

assai

piano Am 8

The division between sections A, B, C and E is marked by double bar-lines

with half and full cadences, predominance of the home key A minor and the return

117

of the opening mourning character at the very end of the piece adds elements of

balance and completion to these sections. At the same time, frequent harmonic

modulations and secondary dominants, a through-composed structure of the piece

and its gradual alteration of sections in continuous progression, in which the music

becomes more emotional and vivid, in particular in sections C and D, emphasise its

temporal development. Thus, this fusion of developments, similar to the one in the

Passacaille, modified certain repetitiveness of opening sections and then reinforced

and stimulated their dynamic enhancement in the middle. This synthesis of musical

development necessitates initial control of dynamic resources marked in the score

from ppp [three pianos] to sforzando, but, at the same time, requires a range of

contrasts. The text of the manuscript contains detailed descriptions of temper and

tone such as calando, affettuoso, espressivo, drammatico, affrettando and dolente.

They facilitate the emotive enhancement dictated by the uniformity of the melodic

outline and guide both performers in their musical self-expression. The beauty of

this movement is in its melodious expression produced as the result of a considerate

approach of Vasilenko to the form of the composition, its registers, qualities of

sonority and sound effects.

3.4.5 Musette

The final piece, Musette, is a tranquil dance or pastoral air that imitates the sound of

a musette, a small French instrument from the bagpipe family. It is written in 6/4 and

its form consists of ABCA sections. Thus, it is a through-composed form with some

elements of a simple ternary form, similar to the second lute piece Madonna

Tenerina. This structural peculiarity is seen in Table 3.4.5 below.

118

Table 3.4.5 Sectional division with bar numbers and keys in the Musette

Musette

Sections Tempo indications Keys Bar numbers

A Teneramente, con moto G major 1+5/5

B Teneramente, con moto D major-G major 11/11

C Poco piu lento G minor 16 (8+8)

A Tempo I G major 5/5

All sections are separated by double bar-lines and differ in length. Only

sections A and B are repeated, as shown in the Table above. This external imbalance

is compensated by internal equilibrium of sections and predominance of the home

key G major with a single modulation to the dominant key D major and the

contrasting parallel key G minor. This piece is a fine replica of traditional bagpipe

music with repetitive short motifs that have consistent rhythmic patterns minim-

crotchet and extensive usage of ornamentation with grace notes throughout. Again,

as in the previous Plainte, this piece combines temporal development due to the

continuous alteration of sections and also some elements of rotation or cyclical

development, because of the return and repeat of section A at the very end, clear and

unambiguous division of sections, supremacy of the home key and regularity of the

rhythmic layout. However, this movement has a minimum of dynamic markings

typical of a Baroque composition compared to the previous piece, in which

Vasilenko put special emphasis on the emotional aspect of the music.

119

Thus, the fusion of temporal and cyclical developments introduced in the lute

pieces places special focus on the expressive and picturesque qualities of the music

in the suite Zodiakus that brings new stylistic features uncharacteristic of the

eighteenth-century French suite, of which more below. The special emphasis on

emotive expression expanded the melodic development and, therefore, slightly

unbalanced the internal proportions of the Passacaille and the Plainte, whereas in

the Musette and especially in the Menuet Vasilenko followed their traditional

steadiness and predictability of musical enhancement, consequently preserving their

sectional uniformity.194 Vasilenko’s rigorous attention to detail and his resourceful

approach to the structures within these suites resulted in a special combination of

tuneful melodies with clear imitations and distinctive rhythmical configurations,

which offered an unreserved scope for instrumental enhancement and perfection.

The harmonic display in the piano part does not overburden the texture maintaining

the balance between the instruments, though the clarity in the viola part suffers

occasionally due to the unbalanced technical peculiarities, which will be reviewed in

the subsection ‘Performing issues’ below.

3.5 Performing issues

The Ouverture, Menuet, partially Musette in the Zodiakus and the Pavane from the

lute pieces retained the traditional structure. This traditionalism consequently

impacts on the interpretation. The regularity of structural units places special

emphasis on the timbre and sound contrast in order to avoid repetitiveness.

However, a performer should take note that these suites combine the traditional

194 For further reference see Tables 3.4.2, 3.4.4 and 3.4.5 with the bar numbers in these

movements.

120

rhetoric and unconventional idioms and, therefore, entail taking the initiative in

articulating and implementing his/her performing goals. Thus, the lute pieces and

the Passacaille and Plainte from the Zodiakus have a special focus on melodic

development with the unrestricted range of musical expression enriched by

advanced instrumental techniques that were inventive for viola compositions of this

period. As Vasilenko rightly underlined in his book on instrumentation, the diversity

of sound colour, dynamic and expressiveness of tone largely depend on the

considerate instrumental execution.195 The string techniques within these suites that

are discussed below offered a broad range of technical approaches, timbres and

sound effects to performers.

3.5.1 Fingering and double-stops as the means of melodic clarity

Neither the Zodiakus nor the lute pieces have any printed fingering and bow

indications, apart from only three rather incidental bow markings in the Pavane.

Consequently, a performer has a complete freedom of imagination and

improvisation in his/her usage of various instrumental techniques whilst being

guided only by the author’s musical phrasing, detailed analysis of the text and form.

Vasilenko broadly used the advanced instrumental string techniques and idioms

characteristic of the twentieth century, including extensive usage of the upper

register, long leaps and progressions of double-stops. These various technical

novelties and complexities in the text led to a few impracticalities and entail

convenient fingering and shifts.196 In the Ouverture, one might consider omitting

195 Sergei Vasilenko, Instrumentovka dlia simfonicheskogo orkestra (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe

muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1952), vol. 1, 7. 196 One should not doubt that Vasilenko knew the instrument well, but he evidently experimented

121

some notes in chords and double stops not only in order to extract the melody from

this dense texture bringing forward its expressive and melodious qualities, but

merely to make the viola part playable. Thus, in bar eight, Vasilenko wrote an

octave on G4 in the third position with a trill above the top note, which is simply

impossible to perform. For this reason one has to focus on the melody and leave out

the low G, which is doubled in the piano part anyway. Thus, both the harmony and

melody will remain fully intact.197

The last piece of the lute cycle, Knights, presents similar challenges. Its

continuous “waves” of scalic and chromatic passages covering all registers and

combined with rigorous chord technique entail full technical control and precision.

The combinations of legato, light or “flying” and heavy staccato produce an effect of

the elegant but incessant and vigorous steps of medieval riders. The closing

repetitive semi-quaver passages of double-stops in the viola part in the coda, which

Vasilenko did not transfer to the ‘cello part,198 are rather impractical not only

with the technical capacity of the viola in order to find new sound and timbre effects. His

collaboration with Borisovskii on the Viola Sonata, op. 46, in 1923-1924, of which more in the fourth

chapter, was a contributing factor to the search for new instrumental approaches, as Borisovskii

also liked to explore the possibilities of technical challenges and uneasy stretches that may bring a

new sound colouring and expressiveness of tone. The fact that Borisovskii left the manuscript of the

Zodiakus unused, justifies some necessary amendments to the score today, because they are

essential for its performance. For further reference to Borisovskii’s technical facility see: 1. Evgeniia

Stoklitskaia, Al’tovaia pedagogika Vadima Borisovskogo [The Viola Pedagogy of Vadim Borisovskii]

(Moscow: Muzyka, 2007), 48-54. 2. Fedor Druzhinin, Vospominaniia [Memoirs] (Moscow: Greko-

latinskii kabinet Shichalina, 2001), 72. 197 For further reference see the edited score of the suite Zodiakus enclosed. 198 The arrangements of the viola and ‘cello editions occasionally differ apart from the Pavane.

Compared to the ‘cello edition, these alterations in the viola part are more complex and advanced.

Some phrases in the viola part were transferred from the middle to the upper register and enriched

with added chromatic passages and double-stops. Thus, the ‘cello part in the coda of the piece

122

because of their instrumental inconvenience. They unnecessarily overburden the

texture of both instrumental parts that are already intensified by continuous semi-

quaver rhythmic patterns, broad use of registers and chords in the piano part. This

section gains better articulation and expression, when one slightly modifies and

lightens the texture of these double-stops.

Example 3.5.1 Vasilenko, Knights, fragment, Piu mosso, bars 101-107

(Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo and

Wien, New York: Universal Edition, 1932), 2. Reproduced by


3.5.2 Timbre contrasts and the upper register

The form of Vasilenko’s pieces, which are well calculated in their structures,

dictates the range of instrumental tactics and creativity in performing proficiency

because of their sequential development. Such uniformity of structural units

necessitates not only flawlessness and precision of execution but also a varied

display of timbres in order to avoid monotony. Thus, the simplicity of musical

Knights repeats the bass line of the piano with a leap A-E for nine consecutive bars, whereas the

viola version offers ascending passages of double-stops.

123

language in the Pavane and Madonna Tenerina brings to light the question of

dynamic and timbre contrasts not only through standard methods of dynamic range

and change of positions. Such ordinary string techniques as vibrato and non-vibrato

along with the usage of open and closed strings when executed within the repetitive

succession of themes and motifs, especially in the Pavane, become of greater value

as they create a varied sound palette of soft, airy, warm or intense and austere

sounds. However, the Pavane is written in the middle register with occasional brief

transitions to the upper register that play only the role of a timbre contrast. Whilst in

the Madonna Tenerina, this changeover of registers develops and elaborates the

melody, which becomes more dramatic. This is the only movement in both cycles

that is written for the viola with a mute that naturally adds a mellow muffled

character to the sound. The first four bars of the second half of section C in the

Madonna Tenerina present its very emotionally expressive theme in the high

register (above C6), in which the viola naturally has a penetrating sound effect. It is

an extremely high and unusual register for viola compositions of this period, which

demonstrates Vasilenko’s unconventional approach in the search for a new timbre

quality. Moreover, the music score states here forte dynamic and a player may

consequently follow a standard approach of using expressive vibrato and intensity of

sound. However, the outcome would be very messy if not hysterical or vulgar. This

theme entails rather the opposite method of an airy, light and quick bow motion

closer to the finger-board with a very sensitive vibrato movement, which is more

typical for delicate rather than exposed episodes.

124

Example 3.5.2 Vasilenko, Madonna Tenerina, fragment, Poco piu

mosso/a tempo, bars 43-46 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe

muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo and Wien, New York: Universal

Edition, 1932), 2. Reproduced by permission of Universal

Edition.

A similar approach is encountered in the third lute piece, Serenade for the

Lady of my Heart, in which Vasilenko extensively used the upper register. The

character of the opening theme and the theme in section D require a soft sound but

with a good projection and defined bow and vibrato control. It is interesting to

compare these conclusions based on the understanding of forms as well as on

practical requirements with a comparable view of Vasilenko about the delicacy of

using viola timbre qualities in the high register, a technique that is more

characteristic of the violin. ‘The viola in the violin tessitura sounds more intense and

expressive than on the violin. It underlines the intimacy and gentleness of the

momentum.’199 At the same time, the violist might consider reviewing and playing

an octave lower bars 34-35 and bars 49-52 with double-stops in the second part of

the Ouverture. The acute sonorous effect of the high register amplified by the fast

tempo is in conflict with the melodic flow that develops smoothly. The change of

199 Sergei Vasilenko, Instrumentovka dlia simfonicheskogo orkestra (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe

muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1952), vol. 1, 128.

125

registers would bring more focus on vocal clarity and expressiveness of the

melody.200

3.5.3 Execution of harmonics and pizzicato techniques

The sound specifics and different intensity of the echo effects of natural and

artificial harmonics as well as broken and arpeggiated pizzicato chords - all bring a

special distinction for a particular phrase within a viola part. Thus, Serenade for the

Lady of my Heart, the third piece from the lute cycle, has a number of episodes

played pizzicato throughout the text. The longest two are in section D, Scherzando,

and the conclusion, Meno mosso. The title of the first one entails light, playful, but

elegant touch of single pizzicatos and unbroken chords, whereas the final section

concludes the initial theme of a love drama with its plea and affirmation of feelings.

This requires a combination of accuracy and precision in unbroken chords and in

ascending scalic passages. On the contrary, the descending passages of pizzicato

motifs followed by arpeggiated chords necessitate softness and delicacy.

Example 3.5.3a Vasilenko, Serenade for the Lady of my Heart, fragment, Piu

mosso. Scherzando, bars 63-67 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe



Edition.

200 For further reference see the score of the suite Zodiakus enclosed.

126

Example 3.5.3b Vasilenko, Serenade for the Lady of my Heart, fragment,

Meno mosso, bars 84-88 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe



Edition.

The interaction of pizzicato and arco episodes serve as a special playful and

light sound contrast in the trio of the Menuet, which require certain instrumental

proficiency. Its execution becomes a rather intricate task, because of the quick

changeover from arco to pizzicato and back in Moderato tempi. One should

minimise the bow movement and stay in the lower half of the bow in order to reduce

the physical impact of this technique.201

The combination of artificial and natural harmonics become the means of

musical expression of contemplation and sorrow in the final bars of the Madonna

201 For further reference see bars 2-3, 9-10, 20-21, and 25-26 of the edited score of the suite

Zodiakus enclosed.

127

Tenerina, when the main theme gets divided into short motifs. A mute adds an extra

delicacy and tenderness to this technique that requires no force. Despite the slow

tempo, whole notes, minims and slurred crochets necessitate a quick bow motion in

this episode, but with a light touch in order to achieve the maximum expressiveness

of diminuendo and crescendo in pianissimo dynamic.

Example 3.5.3c Vasilenko, Madonna Tenerina, fragment, bars 60-67

(Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo and

Wien, New York: Universal Edition, 1932), 2. Reproduced by


Harmonics turn into a useful technique that gives a variety of instrumental

and musical approaches in the Passacaille and Plainte. The intricacies in their texts

limit performing possibilities and leave the only achievable solution of replacing

certain notes for harmonics that otherwise become impractical. Thus, the first note in

the Passacaille is a minim C6 tied for three bars, which then comes back after the

interval sequence written in the low register, two octaves down. This long leap is

unusual for the Baroque period, which was generally characterized by a conjunct

motion. It also causes problems for the violist. There is no rest or pause to find and

secure this top C in pianissimo dynamic, which becomes a rather unrealistic

objective. Although it is not marked in the manuscript, a violist might like to

128

consider playing a harmonic instead as it creates a special timbre effect that also

goes along with the gentleness of the melodic line.202

Similarly, in the Plainte, the first four bars of section E with dotted minims

(bars 65-68) are written in the very high register. It is impossible to secure these

notes, because of a very large leap and absence of rests between this section and the

preceding double stops in the previous section that restrict the fingering option to the

only one. One might consider playing natural and artificial harmonics here, which

would be consistent with the dynamics marked pianissimo.203 It is very likely that

Vasilenko himself would have chosen this technique if he had been advised against

these unnecessary technical impediments produced as a result of these leaps. His

comments about the quality of harmonics on the viola attest to this supposition.

‘Harmonics in a melody add delicacy, poetic expressiveness and distinctive

colour.’204 These were exact characteristics that Vasilenko depicted in these

movements.

3.6 Conclusion

Vasilenko was a renowned master of instrumentation and his stylistic experiment

with different musical genres and forms based on early music material were a

novelty. He also paid special attention to the well-calculated structures of these

suites that guided him in his search for new approaches in instrumental application,

which were innovative for the early music period. Vasilenko enhanced these suites

202 For further reference see bars 9-12 of the edited score of the suite Zodiakus enclosed. 203 For further reference see the edited score of the suite Zodiakus enclosed. 204 Sergei Vasilenko, Instrumentovka dlia simfonicheskogo orkestra (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe


129

with unconventional, highly demanding string techniques that expanded the timbre

and expressiveness of tone production and the diversity of sound. The peculiarities

of the through-composed and ternary forms and consequent fusion of cyclical and

temporal developments became the means of artistic articulation and musical

expression in these works.

The narrative qualities of these works are evident not only in the titles. Each

movement imparts its own imaginative ‘story’ due to the specifics of its melodic

phrasing and its development, ornamentation, harmonic execution, dynamics and

tempo indications that consequently guide a performer in his/her choice of a timbre

palette and technical application with the intensity or restraint of available resources.

An inventive and considerate approach to these objectives by performers would

bring new artistic qualities to the music and play a significant role in its

interpretation. Undoubtedly, this instrumental approach characteristic of the Russian

national composers of the second half of the nineteenth century and of Russian

Symbolism205 was atypical of any surviving Baroque compositions. Moreover,

Vasilenko showed a true individuality in the Madonna Tenerina as it demonstrated

not only a fine stylization but his knowledge of early Russian liturgical music, of

which more in the fifth chapter.

These questions of performing issues described above become especially

important when one performs these pieces with a harpsichord206 that does not

demonstrate much variety of sound control and, thus, gives the viola a full command

205 Further discussion of the influences of Russian composers and Symbolism is in the fifth chapter. 206 The author of this thesis on the viola and Nicholas Walker on the harpsichord gave the premiere

of the suite Zodiakus and the lute pieces at Handel House, London, in 2010. For further reference

see Appendixes 1 and 2.

130

of the dynamics display. There is no evidence that Vasilenko experimented or

performed these pieces with a harpsichord, an instrument that was unpopular in his

lifetime. However, in the third lute piece the solo section of the piano is marked

quasi clavecin under the piano score, which suggests that Vasilenko was searching

for a timbre and sound quality similar to those of a harpsichord. Vasilenko’s

aspiration to produce interesting, unusual and distinctive timbre blends most

certainly would have guided him towards this grouping of instruments if he were to

have had this opportunity during the Soviet period.207

The following words of Vasilenko, which he voiced at the end of his life, in

the early 1950s, stand as a genuine source of creative inspiration for the performers

of his music: ‘One has to call young people not to be afraid of experimentation as it

enriches and broadens prospects immensely.’208 Today, one may say that this

quotation is also a tribute to Vasilenko’s mastery and individuality that he showed in 207 The authentic instruments of the Baroque and pre-Baroque were unpopular in Soviet times as

the instruments of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, which were declared extraneous to the

proletarian culture. Sovetskii Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ [Soviet Encyclopaedic Dictionary], ed. Boris

Vvedenskii (Moscow: Bolshaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, 1953), vol. 1, 146. Unfortunately,

contemporary musicologists have not yet dedicated even one article or a chapter to this subject.

Thus, an American musicologist Richard Taruskin briefly pointed out that Stravinskii’s interest in

Bach and pre-Bach composers was regarded as counterrevolutionary art in Soviet Russia. Richard

Taruskin, The Danger of Music and Other Anti-utopian Essays (Berkley, Los Angeles, London:

University of California Press, 2009), 390. The revival of interest in authentic performances in Russia

started to take place only towards the end of the twentieth century with the performances of an

ensemble of early music ‘Madrigal’ founded by Andrei Volkonskii (1933-2008) in Moscow in 1965.

More on this subject in: 1. Andrei Volkonskii, Partitura zhizni [The Score of Life], ed. Elena Dubinets

(Moscow: Ripol klassik, 2010). 2. Iurii Kholopov, “Andrei Volkonsky the Initiator: a Profile of His Life

and Work,” in Underground Music from the Former USSR, ed. Valeria Tsenova (Amsterdam:

Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997), 1-20. 208 Quoted in Nikolai Zriakovskii, Moi vospominaniia o S.N. Vasilenko. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52,

ed. khr. 1083, p. 13.

131

these arrangements, which undoubtedly enriched the concert viola repertoire with

two fine suites in the style of early music.

132

Chapter Four

Sergei Vasilenko. Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46

The single-movement Viola Sonata was written for Vadim Borisovskii in 1923. This

work makes considerable technical demands on both players, encompassing the

unrestrained emotional expression and power of Romanticism, the intimate lyricism

of vocal and song-type themes, the clarity of contrapuntal imitation with the

emphasis on rhythm comparable to neoclassical features, and the exotic chromatic

harmonies of Oriental music combined with the dissonant harmonies that reflected

the modern tendencies of the time, of which more below. Such a fusion of

contrasting styles is perhaps the only example found in viola compositions of this

period in Russia.209 It is reasonable to investigate this unconventional form prior to

any detailed analysis of its instrumental and stylistic issues. This will help orient us

within the sections, to understand their tonal plans and establish their harmonic and

architectural peculiarities, which are important for the interpretation of this

composition. The external layout of these sections is strongly reminiscent of a

traditional four-movement symphony and a sonata with an opening sonata-allegro,

then a slow movement adagio, followed by a minuet or scherzo and concluding with

a sonata-allegro, as shown in Table 4 below.

209 One might argue that Ernst Bloch’s Suite (1919) and Rebecca Clarke’s Sonata (1919) for viola and

piano also exhibit similar contrasting stylistic characteristics. However, Vasilenko never mentioned

the names of these composers in his writings and probably did not know of the existence of these

compositions. This is not surprising, because even today, in the twenty-first century, these viola

works are not well known in Russia.

133

Table 4 Sectional division with bar numbers and keys in the Sonata for Viola

and Piano, op. 46

Parts/sections210 I II III IV

Composer’s

sectional indications

Allegro

moderato

Andante

amorevole

Fughetta.

Molto energico

Tempo del

commincio

(Allegro

moderato)

Total bar numbers 224 95 59 139

Keys D minor E major E minor D minor/D major

The form looks relatively standard at first glance, because the change of

tempo indications, keys and the modes guide one towards the understanding of its

sectional division. The first element that attracts attention is the imbalance of length

between the sections. This is caused by a very complicated and unusual internal

structure within each section. The opening allegro (Allegro moderato) contains only

the exposition and development, concluding with a dramatic cadenza. Instead of an

immediate recapitulation, a second section, Andante amorevole, presents two

independent, very intimate and exceptionally melodious themes followed by a short,

vigorous episode, marked Molto agitato. This episode connects this section with a

Fughetta, a third section that has an exposition and counter-exposition but no

development. A contrastingly contemplative passage, Sostenuto, leads to a fourth

section, Tempo del commincio, which now acts as the recapitulation of the first, thus

providing balance. It even presents a modified and shortened version of the

210 It is a single-movement sonata. Thus, it would be logical to call its parts sections.

134

Fughetta, which then leads towards the vibrant and spectacular coda. It would be

logical to analyse each section of the sonata closely, taking into account the size of

the composition and the originality of its internal structures that are articulated by

the keys, harmony, rhythm, meter, tempos and texture.

4.1 Language (harmony)

Vasilenko managed to combine traditionalism, polarity and idiosyncrasy of

harmonic and melodic idioms in this sonata. The tonal plan of sections is D minor-E

major-E minor-D minor/D major.211 It displays a certain route of a modal contrast

between parallel minor-major. At first glance, only the pitch tone alone continues to

link these keys and sections together. Thus, E major is not related to D minor at all,

but E minor, the parallel modal form to E major, is related to D major. E minor is

introduced as a key centre not only in the third section with its distinctive theme of

the Fughetta, but also in the development of the first section based on the material of

the first subject group themes, in which the home key D minor does not appear at

all.212 Thus, Vasilenko prepared in advance the appearance of this unrelated key E

major and indiscernibly established distant tonal links between the contrasting

thematic materials of the sections that tie them together.

4.1.1 The first section

The exposition in the first section follows a traditional key relation of the first

subject group in the home key D minor and the relative F major in the second

subject and the closing theme. However, there are features that demonstrate an

211 See Table 4 above. 212 D minor comes back only in the recapitulation section. See further analysis below.

135

unconventional approach. Traditionally, the first subject retains the home key,

though it may have brief modulations to remote keys, and introduces the relative

major followed by thematic and rhythmic contrast only in the second subject.

Instead, the first subject modulates to F major already in bar 10, the main key of the

second subject.213 A new sequential episode with modulating major ninth and

thirteenth chords with some omitted notes works as a transition to the home key D

minor and the re-appearance of the main subject. This novelty is seen in Table

4.1.1a below.214

Table 4.1.1a Sectional division with bar numbers, metre and keys in the First

section/Exposition of the Sonata, op. 46

First section/Exposition (119 bars)

Tempo

indication

Time

signature

Subject

groups

Key Bar

numbers

Bars in total

Allegro

moderato

12/8;

C (4/4) viola

bb. 26-28

1st subject

group, main

theme

D minor 1-9 1

introduction

+36 F major 10-27

Piu mosso 12/8 Sequential episode (starts

on the base tone A)

28-31

A tempo 12/8; C (4/4)

viola bb. 32-

1st subject

group, main

D minor 32-37

213 The recapitulation does not retain this tonal alteration and stays in D minor, though the second

subject and the last theme modulate to D major, but the coda has the first subject in alla breve in F

major. 214 This and the following Tables 4.1.1a-4.1.4 also contain details about meter and structures, which

will be discussed in separate subsections below.

136

34 theme

Piu mosso 12/8; C (4/4)

piano b. 54 &

viola b. 55

1st subject

group,

2nd theme

D minor

(viola-solo

episode)

38-65 28

Meno

mosso.

Amoroso

C (4/4) 2nd subject

F major-E

flat major

66-77 (A)

(5+2+5=12)

35

F major-D

flat major/

B flat

major-G flat

major/

V pedal to

F major

78-89 (B)

(4+4+4=12)

F major 90-100 (A1)

(5+5+1=11)

Allegro

impetuoso

12/8; C (4/4)

piano bb.

101-102

Closing

theme

F major 101-107

19

Calando 12/8 V pedal 108-109

137

Tranquillo

assai

С (4/4); 12/8

viola b. 110

& piano left

hand

bb. 110-115

Transition F major 110-119

The second subject is a contrasting theme of a song-type lyric character. The

rhythmic and melodic materials of its parts are closely related. Part B is concluded

with a half-cadence in the original key, but the return of part A is not fully repeated;

these are typical features of a rounded binary form ABA1. The key display is

noteworthy with modulations to related and remote keys, including on a perfect

fourth, F-B flat and D flat-G flat, though the key F major is maintained throughout

all three parts.

The development in the first section also shows an innovative rhetoric. The

composer introduced a completely new theme Energico and the sequential episode,

similar to the Piu mosso in the exposition, became a part of this new theme in E

minor. This key is a new tonal centre, with which Vasilenko started the opening bars

of the development based on the main subject. The home key D minor does not

appear in the development at all apart from the dominant pedal in the piano

anticipating the viola cadenza at the very end and thus breaks all classical

conventions of the sonata-allegro form. Consequently, one may say that Vasilenko

moved further away from the traditional syntax of tonal centres that imply the

domination of a home key within a single section or movement. His tonal plan in the

sonata is only a thin framework that connected him with the classical principles of

138

the sonata form, but with which he confidently experimented and distanced himself

from conventions. This development has melodic segmentation, rapid harmonic,

chromatic and sequential modulations with the use of seventh and ninth chords. This

is seen in Table 4.1.1b below.

Table 4.1.1b Sectional division with bar numbers, metre and keys in the First

section/Development of the Sonata, op. 46

First section/Development (105 bars)

Tempo

indications

Time

signature

Subjects Keys Bar

numbers

Bars in

total

Tempo I

(Allegro

moderato)

12/8;

C (4/4)

viola bb.

129, 141,

143&

piano left

hand b.

131

Based on the

main subject

E minor 120-131 12

(4+4+4)

+

F# minor 132-143 12

(4+4+4)

+

Motif sequence

on G-B flat base

tones

144-147 4

=24 +4

Piu mosso.

Piangendo

12/8

Elements of

the main

subject

G minor

148-153 6 +

139

Allegro

assai

C (4/4);

12/8

piano bb.

158-166

Transition

to Energico

V pedal to G

minor, G minor

154-171 18=24

Energico

C (4/4);

12/8

viola bb.

172-181

New theme

E minor

(sequential

episode on a

perfect fourth

down to Piu

mosso in bb. 28-

31)

172-195

(192-

195)

12+12=

24

A tempo 12/8

Elements of

the main

subject

Motif sequence

V pedal to D min

196-199 4+

24+1 Cadenza in

tempo

C (4/4) On the themes

of the first

subject group

V pedal to A min,

extensive

chromatic

modulations

200-224

Vasilenko concluded this section with a big powerful viola cadenza based on

the themes of the first subject group of the exposition and thus placed special

emphasis on this thematic material instead of the new theme. The cadenza smoothly

converts the dramatic mood of this first section to the subsequent sensitive lyricism

of the second section that comes instead of the recapitulation.

140

4.1.2 The second section

The second section exhibits some rudiments of oriental rhetoric,215 including

intensive enharmonic changes and modulations, sequences and progressions of

augmented and diminished intervals, triads, seventh and half-diminished seventh

chords without resolutions. The themes are primarily led by the viola that is

accompanied by the piano. They produce harmonic restlessness and devalue the

sense of any tonal centre, giving the impression of atonality, especially in the first

theme of a lament-type character and the conclusion of the second theme that is

based on the first motif of the first theme. The question of a tonal centre becomes

rather irrelevant here, because these series of unresolved chords incessantly

modulate and oppose each other and thus undermine a single tonic triad as central.

They virtually abolish any propensity for key centres and play a role of contrasting

harmonic colouring. Rogal’-Levitskii, was of the opinion that the tonal centre of the

first theme is F# minor.216 However, it gains the elements of this key only towards

bars 3-4 due to the specifics of its sequential chromatic layout of the melody,

whereas the harmonic outline of the first two bars with their inverted major

dominant ninth chord (third inversion) most certainly directs one towards E major.

The second theme is of a vocal character in a contrasting minor-major mode with a

verse-chorus format or a simple binary form alternating between two parts ABA1B1,

in which both parts are shortened and slightly modified for the second time. The

usage of the low register in the verse deepened by its solemn and poignant character

and dignity of expression creates an atmosphere of dirge-like worship or a funeral 215 A detailed discussion of Vasilenko’s interest in oriental subjects is in the subsection ‘Orientalism’

in the fifth chapter. 216 Dmitrii Rogal’-Levitskii, Sergei Vasilenko i ego al’tovaia sonata (Moscow: Muzykal’nyi sektor,

1927), 16.

141

hymn. Its tonal display is notable, modulating on a perfect fourth up as in the second

subject of the exposition, which is marked in italics in Table 4.1.2 below. These

features are elevated in the chorus with the change of its melodic flow to a major

mode and the repositioning of both instrumental parts to a higher register.

Table 4.1.2 Sectional division with bar numbers, metre and keys in the Second

section of the Sonata, op. 46

Second section in 3/4

Tempo

indications

Subjects Keys Bar numbers Bars in

total

Andante

amorevole

1st theme /A E major (piano)

C# major (viola)

225-242

243-257

4+4+10+

4+4+7=33

Dolente 2nd theme/B C# minor-F# minor

(viola)

E-F# major/G-A major

258-269 (A)

270-287 (B)

6+6+

8+8+2=30

A tempo

2nd theme/B1 A–D minor (viola)

Sequential modulations

288-297 (A1)

298- 307(B1)

5+5+

10+

Molto

agitato

Conclusion on

the motif of the

1st theme/A1

Chromatic

modulations/atonality

308-319

12=32

Vasilenko concluded the second section of this sonata with a dramatic and

anxious episode marked Molto agitato based on the opening motif of the first theme

that he altered in rhythm, tempo, character and harmony. Its rapid sequential

142

progressions of diminished seventh and ninth chords with parallel tritons in the base

without resolutions generate and bring back a sense of atonality after the

comparatively tonal second theme. These chords, similar to the first theme, play the

role of a contrasting harmonic palette, which the composer invented according to his

inner hearing, desire and intuition. The tonal unity is imperceptibly replaced by

harmonic unity. The chords distract from the absence of tonal centres, diminish their

function and play the role of harmonic melodies and thus synthesize and unite

melody and harmony. This episode, Molto agitato, links both themes together,

concludes the section and, at the same time, works as a transition to the following

third section Fughetta.

4.1.3 The third section

The third section, Fughetta, with its contrapuntal language and chromatic

modulations is not a shortened fugue, but a fugato. Once again, Vasilenko

demonstrates an unconventional approach to form and language. The exposition and

counter-exposition of the Fughetta are ideally balanced with three bars each for the

theme, answer and episode. This traditional opening of a fugue has also a typical

tonal outlook with the home key E minor followed by its dominant key B minor. A

short sequential episode after the counter-exposition gives an impression of the

beginning of a development. Instead, it leads to the Piu mosso, a simplified version

of the Piu mosso from the first section, which is seen in Table 4.1.3 below.

143

Table 4.1.3 Sectional division with bar numbers, metre and keys in the Third


Third section, Fughetta, in Common Time (4/4)

Tempo

indications

Subjects/episodes Keys Bar

numbers

Bars in

total

Fughetta.

Molto

energico

Introduction (A) Half-

diminished

7th

E minor

(piano),

B minor

(viola)

320-322 3

Exposition, theme 323-325 3+

Answer 326-328 3+

Episode 329-331 3=3+9

Counter-exposition (A1), theme E minor

(viola)

B minor

(piano)

332-334 3

Answer 335-337 3+

Episode 338-440 3=9

Sequential episode with the

elements of a development (B)

B-D minors 341-344 4(2+2)

+

5=9 Piu mosso Simplified sequences similar to

bb. 28-31

from F major 345-349

Allargando

Episode of a new content (C)

Chromatic

sequences to

A min b. 358

350-358 9

144

Sostenuto

solo-viola episode (D) C# pedal

(piano)

359-368 10

short cadenza (E) V pedal to D

minor

369-378 10

This modified Piu mosso is followed by a chromatic episode with new

thematic material that brings a solo-viola episode, which merges into a short

cadenza. These series of sequential episodes introduce a combination of new

elements combined with thematic associations from the first section and thus

conclude this third section and concurrently set up the transition to the fourth

section.

4.1.4 The fourth section

The fourth, final, section starts with one bar of introduction followed by the main

subject in the home key D minor similar to the exposition. However, the main theme

stays in this key unlike the first section, where it modulated to F major. All themes

of the exposition are considerably shortened, including the second subject, which is

now written in D major, the modified home key that changed its mode. This key D

major is preserved further in the closing theme and connecting episodes. This is seen

in Table 4.1.4.

145

Table 4.1.4 Sectional division with bar numbers, metre and keys in the Fourth


Fourth section

Tempo

indications

Time

signature

Subject groups/

episodes

Keys Bar

numbers

Bars in total

Tempo del

commincio

(Allegro

moderato)

12/8 introduction

1st subject, main

theme

D

minor

379

380-401

1

22

41

Piu mosso.

Agitato

12/8; C (4/4)

piano bb. 411-

419 & viola

bb. 413-419

1st subject, 2nd

theme

(viola-solo

episode)

D

minor

402-419 18

Meno

mosso.

Amoroso

C (4/4) 2nd subject D

major

420-430 5+5+1=11

Allegro

impetuoso

12/8 Closing theme D

major

431-439 9

Tranquillo

assai

12/8; C (4/4)

piano right

hand bb. 440-

442 & viola

bb. 441-442

Transition/

Connecting

episodes

D

major

440-442

3

Piu mosso 443-445 3

146

Allegro

strepitoso

C (4/4) Fughetta of the

third section

Exposition (theme,

answer, episode)

Connection

B flat-

F minor

(446-476)

446-451

458-460

(31)

3+3+6

(2+4)=12

3 (2+1)

Counter-exposition

(theme, answer,

episode)

Connection

C-G

minor

461-472

473-476

3+3+6

(2+1+3)=12

3+1

Energico

Piu mosso

C (2/2)

Coda (Main theme)

(as Piangendo b.

148)

F major 477-484

485-492

8

8

41

Furioso 6/8 Conclusion D

major

493-517 25

Instead of an immediate coda comes the altered Fughetta of the third section

in B flat minor in the piano part, which then modulates to its dominant key F minor

in the viola part. However, this tonal disposition changes in the counter-exposition

to C-G minor, though the traditional dominant relation of keys as in the third section

is maintained. The virtuosic and spectacular coda based on the main subject is

written in the relative F major of the home key D minor and then in parallel D

major. This coda presents ecstatic and forceful sequential passages in triplets in the

viola that gradually reach the highest register. The dynamism of this vigorous

climax resolves with a full cadence. Vasilenko included an episode Piu mosso that is

147

related to the Piangendo in the development and thus created additional links that

tied together the material of the previous sections.

One may conclude that Vasilenko developed an idiosyncratic rhetoric, in

which conventional harmonic rudiments merged with unanticipated modulations to

unrelated and distantly related keys, with recurrent shifts on a perfect fourth,

frequent usage of parallel chords and tritons without resolutions, chromatic and non-

functional harmonic passages that lacked a tonal centre and thus equated the roles of

harmony and melody. In 1905, the Russian composer Anatolii Liadov made the

friendly but just remark that Vasilenko’s harmonies were unpredictable, independent

and impulsive.217 This approach produces vivid sound contrasts in the sonata, which

are consequently reflected in the timbre palette. Vasilenko developed this principle

from the late 1890s, when he studied composition with Konius.

[…] My ideal was a bright and clear horizontal melodic line, but with a compulsory

complex and sensitive inner system. Georgii Eduardovich Konius said to me: ‘You

have taken a very dangerous route. I looked at your works. They are still very

euphonious, but all your chords are organised in a peculiar way as they alternate

with each other unpredictably.’ […]218

217 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1948), 49. 218 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979),

136.

148

The Russian composer Artur Lur’e,219 whose music closely correlated with

the new radical trends of the time, described similar harmonic tendencies in his

article ‘O garmonii v sovremennoi muzyke’ [On Harmony in Contemporary Music]

written in 1937.

[…] A “new” chord is a fetish for musicians; an incessant creation of “new” chords

predominates in compositions today. [...] Old harmony is a consonance and

dissonance. The new harmony is a dissonance, consonance and timbre. The new

harmony is based on timbres, so to say, on the correlation of sound capacity,

whereas before the harmony relied on the role of the main tone or chord that

connected them. Besides, the true evolution of harmony, its real enhancement,

comes from the enrichment of counterpoint and the development of polyphony.

[…]220

Vasilenko did neither suffer from obsession nor blindly copy the trends of

the time, but these ideas of contrapuntal enrichment and significance of timbres as 219 Commonly spelled as Arthur-Vincent Lourié (1892-1966), the co-writer of the Futurist Manifesto

‘My i Zapad’ [We and the West] in February 1914, was also influenced by Cubism and Picasso. In

1918-21, the head of the music department of Narkompros under Lunacharskii; in 1922, went to

Berlin on an official visit and never returned to the USSR, at first settling in Paris and then, in 1941,

in the USA. Further reference to Lur’e may be found in: 1. Igor Vorob’ev, Anastasiia Sinaiskaia,

Kompozitory Russkogo Avangarda [Composers of the Russian Avant-garde] (St. Petersburg:

Kompozitor, 2007), 49-77. 2. Francis Maes, A History of Russian Music. From Kamarinskaya to Babi

Yar (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2006), 233. 3. Mikhail Kralin, Artur

i Anna: roman bez geroia, no vse-taki o liubvi [Arthur and Anna: a Novel Without a Hero, but about

Love] (Moscow: Vodolei, 2000). 220 Quoted in Igor Vishnevetskii, ed., Evraziiskoe uklonenie v muzyke 20-30kh godov [Eurasian Bias in

the Music of the 1920-30s] (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2005), 282. Further reference

on compositional inventions of the time in: 1. Jim Samson, Music in Transition: a Study of Tonal

Expansion and Atonality, 1900-1920 (London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1995). 2. Rudolph Reti,

Tonality, Atonality, Pantonality. A Study of Some Trends in Twentieth Century Music (London:

Rockliff, 1958).

149

the result of harmonic and melodic execution were consonant with his inspiration

that had special origins, of which more below.221

One may also observe the individuality of the composer in his

implementation of the conventional devices. Vasilenko methodically exercised

harmonic and melodic sequences throughout the sonata and justified the importance

of this method for musical enhancement in his memoirs. ‘If there are sequences and

opportunities for elevation, one has to lead them to the very end, to the ultimate

point and to their highest intensity.’222 This approach transformed the main subject.

Its modification from a simple ascetic melody in D minor in the opening bars of the

first section into a vibrant and vigorous theme in F major in the coda is reminiscent

of the thematic transformations of Liszt and of Skriabin’s sonatas starting from the

Third Piano Sonata. The arpeggiated ascending and descending runs of inverted

triads and seventh chords in semiquavers in the viola part opposed by triplets in the

piano part in the first eight bars of the coda bear distinct associations with Russian

Orthodox bell-ringing that places special emphasis on polyrhythmic and poly-

harmonic sequences with interaction between registers.223 The power and vividness

of the musical texture, harmony and timbres are comparable with the strength and 221 See the subsections ‘Song and counterpoint: the influence of Glinka and Taneev’ and ‘The

Influence of the French Impressionists on Vasilenko’s language’ in the fifth chapter. 222 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979),

247. 223 It is likely that Vasilenko derived the idea of imitating bell-ringing from Taneev, who often used

this principle in his choral works and also in his chamber music, in particular, Piano Quintet op. 30.

For further reference see: Galima Aminova, Otechestvennye istoki tvorchestva S.I. Taneeva [National

Origins of Taneev’s Creativity] (Krasnoiarsk: Gosudarstvennyi Universitet, 2006), 152-153. However,

Vasilenko used this method only in the first eight bars of the coda, whereas in Taneev’s works it was

one of the main principles of thematic enhancement within large structural sections. For further

discussion of Taneev’s influence see the fifth chapter.

150

richness of the orchestral quality of tone.

Example 4.1.4 Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment,

Fourth section/Coda, bars 477-479 (Moscow:

Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo muzykal’nyi sector, 1925), 32.

Reproduced by permission of the Library of the Union of

Composers of the Russian Federation, Moscow.

4.2 Language (meter and rhythm)

The composer freely operated with polyrhythm and poly-meter throughout. In the

exposition, the experimentation with the meter in the themes of the first subject

group created rhythmical tensions and tautness. Vasilenko not only opposed the

viola and piano with the polyrhythm of duplets, triplets, quintuplets, sextuplets,

septuplets and syncopation that appear frequently starting from bar nine, but also by

alternating between compound and simple times of 12/8 and the Common Time

(4/4). He also exercised the poly-meter within the piano part in the Tranquillo assai

combining both meters together. In the development of the first section, this meter

manoeuvring along with rhythmic alterations is considerably extended, which adds

151

restlessness and irregularity to the melodic and harmonic flow.

The second and third sections preserve their meters of 3/4 and 4/4

respectively. The slow pace of the second section starts with certain rhythmic

steadiness, which is uncharacteristic of oriental melodies that usually exhibit

rhythmic unpredictability. At the same time, the second theme demonstrates

frequently exploited polyrhythm with syncopation opposed by triplets. They produce

a certain apprehension and thus intensify the sorrowful mood of the theme. On the

contrary, the relentless usage of syncopation, dotted rhythms and tied notes in the

Fughetta gave the impression of an incessant contrapuntal stream stimulated by a

fast energetic tempo. This complex approach to the meter and rhythm as in the first

and third sections continues in the fourth section. Moreover, Vasilenko commenced

the coda with a modified Common Time in 2/2 instead of the usual 4/4, which he

then changed to 6/8. These time-signatures accelerate the pace of the finale with the

passages of irregular groups that the composer kept switching backwards and

forwards from sextuplets to septuplets in quavers in the piano part.

One may say that this complexity and disruption of conventional meter and

rhythmic patterns became a characteristic element in Vasilenko’s language as he

showed a similar method in his other compositions, including his first major work

the Skazanie o velikom grade Kitezhe i tikhom ozere Svetoiare [Tale of the Great

City of Kitezh and the Quiet Lake Svetoyar], written some twenty years before the

sonata. Rimskii-Korsakov gave special emphasis to the constant alternation of the

time-signatures between 2/4, 3/4 and 6/8, when he listened to this cantata in October

1902.224 It is likely that asymmetrical phrase structures formed by the polysyllabic

224 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1948), 54.

152

words of the Russian language that illustrated natural recitative speech along with

the repetitive patterns characteristic of Russian vocal music were conducive to this

approach in the cantata.225 In the sonata, it brought tension, agitation and thematic

confrontation and enhancement to the melodic flow, which also depended on the

tempos and tonal outlook. They bring to the foreground different musical features

and qualities. Thus the slow tempo and regular meter in the second section intensify

the sonorous effect of chromatic modulations and tonal restlessness that initially

added a certain sensitivity and daintiness to the music. As a result, the time expands,

but the polyrhythm and the gradual repositioning from the low to the high registers

in both instrumental parts impart acute anxiety and reinforce the texture. In contrast,

the fast tempo and relatively traditional tonal plan in the third section laid special

emphasis on the dense contrapuntal language and syncopated rhythmic stream. Both

instrumental parts oppose each other and the time becomes compressed. This effect

of the expansion and reduction of the time was also caused by the complexity of

inner structures and the diverse nature of textures, such as counterpoint and song-

type themes of Russian origin that entailed melodic enhancement, of which more

below.

225 Thus the Introduction and Aria Gusliara [gusli player] in B minor in the cantata exhibit continuous

melodic and note repetition, which Vasilenko opposed with rhythmic and meter flexibility (see

music example 5.2e in the fifth chapter). Sergei Vasilenko, Vstuplenie i ariia gusliara. Skazanie o

velikom grade Kitezhe i tikhom ozere Svetoiare. Text by Nikolai Manykin-Nevstruev (Moscow,

Leipzig: P. Iurgenson, 1902), 3-13. Further discussion of Vasilenko’s interest in vocal music is in the

subsection ‘Song and counterpoint: the influence of Glinka and Taneev’ in the fifth chapter.

153

4.3 Structure (textures and forms)

The process of the alteration of traditional instrumental forms in Russia at the turn of

the twentieth century was introduced and developed in the late piano sonatas of

Aleksandr Skriabin and later by Nikolai Medtner and Anatolii Aleksandrov. All

Skriabin’s sonatas starting from the sixth to the ninth span a single-movement

structure.226 This practice was very influential, especially among the young

generation of composers, including Roslavets, who employed a single-movement

form in his radical endeavour to break all possible ties with tradition.227 Vasilenko in

contrast, never belonged to the extreme and revolutionary groups of the musical

scene. He implemented his innovations while maintaining his ties to tradition and

compromised between the conservatives and left-wing modernist movements of the

time. Vasilenko followed this unconventional, ultra-modern approach of having a

single-movement sonata performed with no interruption that consequently shortens

226 For further reference on Skriabin and structures in Russian music of the time see: 1. Richard

Taruskin, “Scriabin and the Superhuman. A Millennial Essay,” in Defending Russia Musically

(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997), 308-359. 2. Boris de Schloezer, Scriabin:

Artist and Mystic, trans. Nicolas Slonimsky (Berkley: University of California Press, 1987). 3.Hugh

Macdonald, Skryabin (London, New York, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1978). 4. Tamara

Levaia, Skriabin i khudozhestvennye iskaniia XX veka [Skriabin and Artistic Searches in the Twentieth

Century] (St. Petersburg: Kompozitor, 2007). 5. Leonid Sabaneev, Vospominaniia o Skriabine

[Reminiscences About Skriabin] (Moscow: Klassika-XXI, 2000). 6. Boleslav Iavorskii, “Zametki o

tvorcheskom myshlenii russkikh kompozitorov ot Glinki do Skriabina [Notes on the Artistic Thinking

of Russian Composers from Glinka to Skriabin],” in Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works]. (Moscow:

Sovetskii kompozitor, 1987), vol. 2, 41-232. 7. Sergei Pavchinskii, Sonatnaia forma proizvedenii

Skriabina [Sonata Form in the Works of Skriabin] (Moscow: Muzyka, 1979). 8. Francis Maes, A

History of Russian Music. From Kamarinskaya to Babi Yar (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University

of California Press, 2006), 207-216.

227 The first sonata for viola and piano by Roslavets has a single-movement form. Further reference

to this work may be found in the section ‘Relation between the written component and the recital

programme’ and in the introduction of the thesis.

154

and condenses the time compared to the layout of a standard four-movement sonata.

Despite this radicalism, his works, though varied in compositional techniques and

styles, were largely based on an exquisite melodic development of themes, the

legacy of the Russian composers of the nineteenth century and folk traditions. The

Russian-British musicologist Marina Frolova-Walker justly pointed out that this

vocal element with the concept of pesennost’ and its synonym raspevnost’

[songfulness]228 is an essential feature of Russian music.

[…] The heart of Russian music is folk pesennost’ (not song in the narrow sense of

genre or type of musical form) and the rhythm of human breathing, which dominate

everywhere in Russian music, both vocal and instrumental, over the bars and

patterns of the periodic formal architecture. Should we say that this quality

raspevnost’ is a tradition or, better, the nature of a man who has lived in the steppes

and fields, on the edge of the great rivers and severe forests of our Motherland? It is

still hard to say what the genesis of this quality is, but it is perhaps the most viable

strand of Russian culture... […]229

Vasilenko not only used song-type themes in internal sections of the sonata

but enhanced and shaped them into simple forms. The second subject of the

exposition has a simple binary form (ABA1). The second section has the elements of

a ternary form, because of the return of the elements of the first theme (ABB1A1),230

228 This term was introduced by Boris Asaf'ev in his essay ‘O russkoi pesennosti’ [On Russian

Songfulness], which was published in his essay series ‘Muzyka moei Rodiny’ [Music of my

Motherland] in the third issue of the magazine Sovetskaia muzyka [Soviet Music] in 1948. 229 Marina Frolova-Walker, Russian Music and Nationalism. From Glinka to Stalin (New Haven &

London: Yale University Press, 2007), 263. 230 Rogal’-Levitskii was of the opinion that this section is a three part verse-chorus form. Dmitrii

Rogal’-Levitskii, Sergei Vasilenko i ego al’tovaia sonata (Moscow: Muzykal’nyi sektor, 1927), 16.

155

but its second theme is a strophic verse-chorus form (ABA1B1).231 The expansion of

the second subject to a simple binary form may occur in a sonata form, though it is

more likely in symphonic works,232 whereas the usage of a verse-chorus form in a

viola sonata reveals the true originality of Vasilenko’s creativity. As a result of this

melodic enhancement, the time expands not only within these internal structures as

mentioned in the previous subsection, but stretches out the form of the sonata as a

whole, prolongs its length and makes the whole composition last up to 17-18

minutes. This approach was uncharacteristic of Skriabin, whose late piano sonatas

exhibit the time economy of contrasting thematic material and its development; the

crystallisation of harmonic units and melodies. Thus it takes a maximum of 8 to 12

minutes to perform, almost twice as short as the viola sonata.

Vasilenko enhanced this work further with the elements of motivic

development, when an episode and its breakdown of extended phrases that are too

short in size to give them independence re-emerge throughout the composition. Thus

the intervallic sequential passage Piu mosso of the exposition (bb. 28-31) that

interrupts the main theme re-appears in the development (bb. 192-195), third section

(bb. 345-349) and the fourth section (bb. 455-457, 470-476) with rhythmic and

harmonic alterations, but still building up a recognizable thematic/textural link

throughout these sections.

231 See Tables 4.1.1a and 4.1.2 above. 232 Further reference in: 1. Charles Rosen, Sonata Forms (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Co.,

1988). 2. Igor’ Sposobin, Muzykal’naia forma [Musical Form] (Moscow: Muzyka, 1984), 202-203. The

book by Sposobin is an important source as it had seven republications and was initially

recommended by Professors of the Moscow Conservatoire, including the leading composers

Miaskovskii and Shebalin in 1945, in the lifetime of Vasilenko.

156

Example 4.3a Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment, First

section, bars 28-31 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe

izdatel’stvo, 1925), 4. Reproduced by permission of the

Library of the Union of Composers of the Russian Federation,

Moscow.

Example 4.3b Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment, First

section/Development, bars 192-195 (Moscow:




157

Example 4.3c Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment,

Third section, bars 345-349 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe

muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1925), 22-23. Reproduced by

permission of the Library of the Union of Composers of the

Russian Federation, Moscow.

158

Example 4.3d Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment,

Fourth section, bars 455-457 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe

muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1925), 30-31. Reproduced by



Example 4.3e Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment,


muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1925), 31. Reproduced by



159

He pursued a similar method with the melodic passage of a transitional

character Tranquillo assai in the first section (bb. 110-119), where it connects the

exposition and development, and in the final section, where it is considerably

shortened (bb. 440-442) and leads instead of a coda towards the Fughetta. This

approach enhanced thematic development, created new structures and thus gave

special contrasting features to the texture and rhetoric.

Example 4.3f Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment, First

section/Exposition, bars 110-119 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe




160

Example 4.3g Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment,





161

Vasilenko placed special emphasis on the internal balance of structural

dimensions within the sonata. The manuscript of the sonata contains a large number

of numeral markings of Vasilenko in blue and red pencils that correspond to the

piano and viola parts respectively. They indicate that he calculated the number of

bars in sections and regarded the equilibrium of structures as being of great

importance for the clarity and expressiveness of a musical composition.233 All three

parts of the second subject in the exposition have almost perfect internal and

external meter balance or a symmetrical design (12/12/11), which brings the sense

of tranquillity after the agitation of the first subject group. The third part has

233 These sectional divisions do not form any integer sequences as they trample back and forth, but

demonstrate larger sections in the viola part in comparison with the piano. Thus the viola part forms

the following model: 44-55-48-42-39-97-54-48-49-41; whereas the piano part has 12-11-13-13-16-

16-16-12-14-16 and so on. The complete chart is included in Appendix 4. The emphasis on

structuring and inner clarity of forms was characteristic of the time. Vasilenko’s teacher Georgii

Konius developed a method of form analysis called metrotektonizm [Metrotechtonic Study] that

was based on the abstract principle of proportions similar to architecture, in which the crystal

symmetry of bars in a work was the factor of beauty of the work as a whole. Thus the proportion of

bar grouping, so called the law of balance of temporal values, is the principal of formation of any

form. According to Konius’ method, the equality of grouping creates a ‘harmony’ of temporal

structures, for example, 2 3 4 - 2 3 4, 2 3 4 - 4 3 2, 2 3 4 - 3 4 2. An uneven grouping can compensate

an even grouping and thus form a quadrangle figure, for example, 5+3=8=24 or 5+2+5=12=26. The

metre of a pulse is consequently 24 and 26 that tights the sections of a work together, in which the

sum of structural proportions may not correspond to particular sections of a work, such as a theme

or episode. Konius’ method was of some interest for Vasilenko as he briefly mentioned this in his

unpublished article on Taneev. However, Vasilenko’s division included in appendix 4 does not

correspond to the method of Konius, the example of which is demonstrated in Appendix 4a. For

further reference to Konius and his method see: 1. Sergei Vasilenko, Gody obshcheniia s S.I.

Taneevym. Housed in RGALI, fund 2465, op. 1, ed. khr. 939, p. 19. 2. Georgii Konius, Materialy,

vospominaniia, pis’ma, 1862-1933 [Materials, Memoirs, Letters], ed. Natalia Konius and Lidia

Kozhevnikova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1988). 3. Georgii Konius, Metricheskoe issledovanie

muzykal’noi formy [Metric Research of a Musical Form] (Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe

izdatel’stvo, 1933), 1-36.

162

rallentando molto for the last two bars, which consequently extended its length and

brought it to equilibrium with the previous two parts. The development has a

complete internal balance with 24 bars in each sector and four bars of motivic

development in the first and last sectors based on the first subject. Vasilenko only

added one extra bar with a pause to the cadenza (24+4/24/24/4+24+1). The third

section maintained almost perfect balance between the sectors keeping the same

length of nine bars with three bars of the introduction and ten bars in the closing

sector (3+9/9/9/9/10/10). The fourth section retained the length of the theme-answer

from the Fughetta with a slightly extended episode (12+3/12+3+1). Vasilenko only

added connections between the exposition and counter-exposition with one extra bar

before the coda. The sizes of the opening sector and the coda have 41 bars each and

form the arch of the finale.

Vasilenko united the diversity and dissimilarity of structures and textures

within this work. The first and last sectors in the finale are both based on the first

subject group themes and thus their supremacy is endorsed by the relations between

the thematic materials in the opening and final sections of the sonata. These relations

emphasise that this internal four-section layout has traditional rudiments of a sonata-

allegro with an exposition and development in the first section and the finale that

accomplishes the function of a recapitulation and re-establishes the material of the

exposition. This thematic superiority clarifies the reason for the imbalance of length

between the sections of the sonata, with the first and last sections being considerably

larger than the middle.234 The first and fourth sections present, elaborate, modify and

reinstate the thematic and harmonic material and thus perform the most significant

dynamic function and space in the structure. The second and third sections with their 234 See Table 4 above.

163

contrapuntal and distinctive oriental idioms play the role of a thematic and linguistic

contrast that deepens the musical drama and argument set up within the exposition

and development of the first section. There is also a clear tendency towards bar

reduction towards the fourth section, which is twice as long as the third, but twice as

short as the first. The role of the fourth section here is to amalgamate, compress,

bring tension to the climax and re-establish the supremacy of the main subject.

Therefore, this sonata combines the elements of cyclical development, because of

the modified return of the opening section, and temporal development due to the

continuous dynamism and transformation throughout the sonata. Vasilenko showed

a similar outline in his early music transcriptions, though undoubtedly on a lesser

scale. This evaluation partly concurs with the opinion of Krebs, who pointed out the

intensity of the musical drama and melodic enrichment in Vasilenko’s writing: ‘Nor

did the organic form and motivic development enter his style. He substituted drama

for form and melody for motive.’235 Indeed, one can hardly say that this sonata has

an organic form as it combines traditional and unconventional elements. However,

Krebs made a misjudgement when he alleged that Vasilenko ignored structural

aspects and motivic development.

4.4 Performing issues

The structural, key, melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, meter, textural and stylistic

peculiarities and origins in this work affect the instrumental and interpretative goals

for performers. Both instrumental parts display an awe-inspiring orchestral power

and, at the same time, sensitivity and depth of feeling demonstrated through the 235 Stanley Dale Krebs, Soviet Composers and the Development of Soviet Music (London: George

Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1970), 83.

164

range of instrumental registers, dynamics and intensity of technical features, which

are very demanding for both players. The composer did not give a violist any time to

re-charge during all these diverse moods and textures, because all four sections are

performed attacca in this sonata. Moreover, he offered the soloist one major cadenza

and three short solo episodes, which added a concertante element to the work. The

fact that this sonata was arranged for violin and piano236 speaks for its exceptionally

advanced technical and instrumental qualities equal to those of the violin solo.

Usually, violin works are transcribed for the viola not only as a means to enlarge its

limited repertoire but also in order to boost its technical potential, which is

traditionally regarded as inferior to that of the violin.

4.4.1 Fingering

The viola part has long episodes with sequential passages of double-stops

throughout the sonata, including Piu mosso, Energico and the Cadenza in the first

section, Fughetta and Allegro strepitoso in the third and fourth sections respectively.

These intervallic combinations of perfect fourths and fifths, minor and major

sevenths, minor seconds, tritons and octaves in the middle and high registers (upper

positions of A and D strings) create rather uneasy stretches in the left hand.237

Irrefutably, these progressions are intervallic components of diminished sevenths

and various inversions of ninth and seventh broken chords with omitted notes, with

which Vasilenko furnished and elaborated the motivic development.238 The dynamic

236 Sergei Vasilenko, Sonata dlia al’ta i fortepiano, op. 46. Perelozhenie dlia skripki i fortepiano

Mikhaila Reitikha [Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46. Arrangement for Violin and Piano by Mikhail

Reitikh] (Moscow: Muzgiz, 1955). 237 For further reference see bb. 28-31 in the subsection ‘Structure (textures and forms)’. 238 See more information on the motivic development in the subsection ‘Structure (textures and

165

markings forte and fortissimo and brisk tempos intensify the power and energy of

these progressions.239 There is no question of using the most convenient fingering

here due to the specifics of intervallic grouping in these progressions but a search for

an occasional fingering option that would make shifts from one interval to another

more eloquent, articulated, flowing and secure. Besides, continuous modulations

with enharmonic changes and tritons entail a more sensitive approach to the

accuracy of pitch and expressive intonation, which underline the distinctiveness of

the melodic language. The fact that Vasilenko dedicated this sonata to Borisovskii,

who prepared the premiere of this composition along with the composer, was

certainly beneficial for its future performers. The manuscript of the sonata dated

December 1923 contains the fingering and bowing markings written by the same

pen as the rest of the score, which were transferred into its first publication in 1925

and the following re-publications.240 Neither the manuscript nor its publications state

that the fingering and bowing were included or edited by Borisovskii. However, he

was the first performer of this work that was dedicated to him and closely

collaborated with the composer. This allows one to conclude that the ideas of these

string markings developed as the result of this collaboration.

In fact, this sonata is the only viola work by Vasilenko that has any fingering

and bow indications.241 However, some of the fingering suggested in the first Piu

mosso requires extensive usage of the fourth finger in combination with the third,

which creates a rather insecure and weak finger pattern. This finger pattern was forms)’. 239 For further reference see bb. 192-195 in the subsection ‘Structure (textures and forms)’. 240 The manuscript is housed in RGALI, Moscow, fund 653 (Muzgiz) [the State Musical Publishing

House], op. 1, ed. khr. 239. 241 There are only three incidental bow markings in the Pavane from the lute pieces.

166

probably suggested by Borisovskii, who according to Druzhinin liked uneasy and

uncomfortable shifts on the fourth finger.242 A violist might revise the fingering

printed in the solo part in bb. 28-29 (third-fourth/second-third finger pattern in bar

28 and second-fourth/first-second finger pattern in bar 29) and change it for second-

fourth/first-second and second-third/first-second finger patterns respectively, which

perhaps would create unusual stretches. At the same time, this fingering would add

strength and articulation to the passages that are essential in this powerful episode

marked staccato.243

4.4.2 Bowing as the means of articulation

The question of articulation is of high importance for the clarity of this thick texture

that has many accents and staccato symbols in dramatic episodes. Especially in the

Fughetta, the rapid waves of scalic passages with dotted rhythm and ascending

chromatic sequences in triplets require extra precision, efficiency and lightness of

bow strokes.

Example 4.4.2a Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment,

Third section, bars 326-331 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe




242 Fedor Druzhinin, Vospominaniia (Moscow: Greko-latinskii kabinet Shichalina, 2001), 72. 243 For further reference to the musical example see the subsection ‘Structure (textures and forms)’.

167

However, they ought to be performed in the lower half, naturally the heaviest

part of the bow, because of the fortissimo dynamic, which is impossible to sustain

for this long period in the lighter, upper half of the bow. The bow stroke that

emerges as the result of all these contradictory objectives is a combined short

détaché and staccato (or heavy marcato) with occasional elements of spiccato. At

the same time, the approach to this orchestral density of texture in the cadenza, in

which Vasilenko added chords and ascending virtuoso scalic passages to the

progressions of double-stops, is very different.

Example 4.4.2b Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment, First

section/Cadenza, bars 200-205 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe




168

It necessitates a good production of tone, resilient, elastic and smooth

connection of the bow strokes, depth and vividness of timbre, emphasis on the

melodic elegance and liberty of phrasing covering all registers that elaborate the

vocal and virtuosic display of the viola solo.

4.4.3 Upper positions and the search for a special timbre quality

Another notable peculiarity in the text of the sonata is occasional indications of

positions and strings on which a performer is advised to play melodic phrases. Most

of the time, these indications are written either next to expressive melodic themes

and phrases or in the episodes in which these melodies gain a dramatic character due

to intensive harmonic and rhythmical work.244 These indications require the use of

high positions on low strings instead of the standard low positions on the middle

strings that have an open exposed sound.

244 In the first section, these indications are printed in the themes of the first subject group in bb. 2,

6, 14-15, 24, 124, 126, 128 and in the cadenza; in the middle sections in bb. 253, 288, 290 and 368.

There are none in the recapitulation as the composer expected the performer to duplicate the

fingering and positions of the first subject from the first section.

169

Example 4.4.3a Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment, First

section/Exposition, bars 124-128 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe




This unusual repositioning implies that the composer was looking for a

distinctive colour and timbre effect of a rich, deep and expressive tone production. It

is interesting to compare this feature with Vasilenko’s perception of viola qualities

described in his book about instrumentation. He emphasized that the viola does not

possess exceptional qualities in the middle register due to a certain nasal effect in its

timbre. In his opinion, the high register exhibits broad expressive possibilities,245 the

qualities that Vasilenko unreservedly demonstrated and enhanced in the sonata. 245 Sergei Vasilenko, Instrumentovka dlia simfonicheskogo orkestra (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe


170

Especially in Piangendo, all solo episodes and the coda have either long leaps within

the range of two to three octaves or ascending arpeggiated passages, similar to the

components characteristic of violin virtuoso compositions.

Example 4.4.3b Vasilenko, Sonata for Viola and Piano, op. 46, fragment,

Fourth section/Coda, bars 499-503 (Moscow:




Here they frequently reach the top notes of the viola’s playing range. This

feature became distinctive of viola music towards the second half of the twentieth

century, but was hardly ever employed in the music in the early 1920s. Moreover,

Vasilenko’s further comments give an explanation of his particular choice of a solo

instrument, which lend special significance to the analysis of this sonata and provide

171

justification of his use of the viola instead of the traditional choice of the violin or

cello.246

[…] Violas are superb as solo instruments. For example, in melodies of oriental

character they reveal a certain acuteness and, at the same time, charm and

expressiveness of tone, which are characteristic features of folk instruments of the

East. Its timbre reminds one of the cor anglais. However, if a melodic line has a fast

tempo and contains difficult technical elements then one should indeed give his

preference to the viola. […]247

Even the harsh critics of Vasilenko emphasised the beauty and self-

expression of his melodic lines in the sonata. Thus Nikolai Miaskovskii writing in an

article ‘Na kontsertakh sovremennoi russkoi muzyki’ [At Concerts of Contemporary

Russian Music] in the magazine Muzykal’naia kul’tura [Music Culture] in 1924,

made a positive remark after his unjustified criticism of the ‘prehistoric’ language of

the sonata that the clarity and candour of themes were the best features in this

composition. Furthermore, he specifically pointed to the beauty of the viola in the

second section that has melodies of oriental character, which unpredictably

correlated with the judgment of Vasilenko with regard to the usage of the viola

246 Rogal’-Levitskii left deeply appreciative and inspiring words about Vasilenko, which perhaps do

not convey specific details, but emphasize the elegance and diversity of instrumental and melodic

approach in the sonata and the originality of Vasilenko’s instrumental choice. ‘The viola sonata was

born in this colourful exquisite oriental aroma, in this fantastic chaos of boundless perception of the

mysterious exotic and in this amazing play of various instrumental timbres. It is difficult to say

precisely what thoughts guided the author and explain his existence among this bright layer of the

Orient [...]. His passion towards everything exquisite, beautiful and extraordinary directed his

instrumental choice towards the viola rather than the violin or cello.’ Dmitrii Rogal’-Levitskii, Sergei

Vasilenko i ego al’tovaia sonata (Moscow: Muzykal’nyi sektor, 1927), 9. 247Sergei Vasilenko, Instrumentovka dlia simfonicheskogo orkestra (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe


172

above. ‘The sincerity of music reaches its culmination of expressiveness in lyrical

moments, in particular in the slow second section.’248 Thus, the opinions of these

two antagonists differed with regard to the definition and stylistic content of true

contemporary music, but complemented each other on the exceptionally melodious

nature and eloquence of instrumental tone in the sonata. Vasilenko, in his turn, did

not restrict his melodies to the upper register of the viola that in his opinion was

especially remarkable, but used freely all four octaves of the viola’s capacity. His

most lyrical theme of the second subject and the second theme in the second section

are written in the low and middle registers of the viola. They require sensitive

control over the vibrato in order to maintain the intimacy and introversion of the

music throughout. Moreover, Vasilenko used a mute in the second section, which

imparted a special mysterious, velvety and mellow sonority to the timbre.

4.5 Conclusion

The depth of knowledge of instrumental colours, their combinations, technical and

sonorous possibilities as well as the professionalism in their application allowed

Vasilenko to employ, operate and mix contradictory idioms with dynamism and

expression. He modified his language according to the requirements of the new

musical epoch and enriched his viola sonata with the instrumental advantages and

inventions of the twentieth century. Writing in October 1919, his contemporary

Boris Asaf'ev commented that Vasilenko ‘does not look behind and he cannot look

248 Nikolai Miaskovskii, Sobranie materialov v dvukh tomakh [Collection of Materials in Two

Volumes] (Moscow: Muzyka, 1964), vol. 1, 231.

173

ahead. Therefore, he will not discover any new paths but he is always modern.’249

Asaf'ev was right to a degree due to Vasilenko’s close bond with the traditions of

earlier Russian composers and folk music and his inspiration drawn from the Silver-

Age aesthetics, but his musical language was also moderately influenced by

Debussy and Skriabin, of which more in the fifth chapter. The modernism that

Asaf’ev described can be distinguished in the modernist approach to the one-

movement sonata form, the experiments with polyrhythm and poly-metre, the

moderate modifications in the harmonic language with freely used seventh and ninth

chords and unusual chromatic modulations – not extending to a continuous atonality,

but bringing a degree of nonconformity and novelty to the tonal plan.

The range and complexity of styles and string techniques in Vasilenko’s

works for viola and piano allow one to describe them as unique examples of

Russian compositions for the viola with a diversity of harmonic and rhythmic

language, an exquisite palette of sound colour and a considered approach to the

form, articulations and dynamics. Rena Moisenko described Vasilenko’s writing as

‘exotic, aesthetic and excessively refined’,250 which also applies to his viola works.

The composer often explored beyond the traditional limits of the technical and sonic

potential of the instrument, placing it on a par with the violin. Thus, he challenged

the whole conception of the tradition that regarded the viola as inferior to the violin

and other instruments of the string family. This innovative style launched new

standards in viola performance and expanded its repertoire. Vasilenko’s most

important achievement in this sonata was the enhancement of the viola with a quasi-

249 Boris Asaf'ev, O muzyke XX veka [On the Music of the Twentieth Century] (Leningrad: Muzyka,

1982), 111. 250 Rena Moisenko, Realist Music. 25 Soviet Composers (London: Meridian Books Ltd., 1949), 236.

174

orchestral range of colours, and an equal intensity of musical and technical material

that was rare in chamber music.

175

Chapter Five

Stylistic issues in Vasilenko’s viola compositions

5.1 Formation of musical principles

Vasilenko’s compositional language is refined, inimitable and euphonious with a

particular emphasis on a timbre, register and sonority. What was the inspirational

milieu of Vasilenko’s creativity? His inner circle of friends consisted of leading

musicians, writers and artists of the time that influenced the formation of his

aesthetic principles and interests. Among the collection of Vasilenko’s documents in

the archive of his friend Fedorov, is an undated file designed and neatly decorated in

Vasilenko’s hand with his personal writings, inscriptions and photos entitled ‘Moi

uchitelia i druz’ia’ [My Teachers and Friends].251 The content of this file was not

transferred in this format into Vasilenko’s two books of memoirs, published in

Moscow in 1948 and 1979, which are discussed in the first chapter. It is a valuable

document as it brings to light the names of the most important personalities in the

view of Vasilenko that played a crucial role in his professional growth. Vasilenko

extracted these names from a long list of his acquaintances and commented on each

person that he included in this unpublished file with deep respect and admiration.

All these individuals were not only major personalities in their professional fields

and very active public figures, but above all, they are remembered in history as the

true proponents of the Russian national heritage. Among them were musicians

Anatolii Liadov, Vasilii Safonov, Aleksandr Glazunov, Milii Balakirev, Mikhail

Ippolitov-Ivanov and Fedor Shaliapin, the critic Vladimir Stasov, the entrepreneur 251 Sergei Vasilenko, Moi uchitelia i druz’ia. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 413, pp. 1-20.

This file is likely to be of the mid 1940s, when Vasilenko worked on the first publication of his

memoirs.

176

Savva Mamontov, the historian Vasilii Kliuchevskii and artists Viktor Vasnetsov,

Mikhail Nesterov and Mikhail Vrubel’.

Vladimir Stasov, the literary mentor of the ‘Moguchaia kuchka’ [‘The

Mighty Handful’, commonly called ‘The Five’], the composers’ group that was

distinctive for its endeavour to create a genuinely Russian music, gave the following

advice to Vasilenko in 1903, after a concert in which he listened to Vasilenko’s

Epicheskaia poema [Epic Poem] op. 4: ‘You are a true Russian composer! Do keep

this direction and do not turn towards the West. A Russian must always be Russian

and only Russian!’252 Perhaps, today these authoritarian words of one of the firm

believers in Russianness over European influence in literature, fine arts and music

could be interpreted as radically nationalistic and narrow minded. At the same time,

they imply faithfulness towards one’s own origin and customs that preserves the

distinctiveness of a national idiom and one’s own individual traits. Vasilenko did

indeed follow this path and gained recognition as a composer with special emphasis

on Russian national traditions and history, including the Old Believers’ chant,253

folk and oriental music, and symbolic and mystic themes influenced by the Silver

Age aesthetic. However, he was equally inspired by the ideas of Glinka and Taneev

as well as the musical trends of the West, including French Impressionism, of which

below. Vasilenko showed true individuality in his refined implementation of these

often incompatible subjects in his viola compositions. Thus, his fine stylization in

252 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, Moi uchitelia i druz’ia. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr.

413, p. 9. 253 Reforms to the practices of the Orthodox Church in the mid-seventeenth century led to a schism,

with the starovery [Old Believers] adhering to the earlier rites, including the preservation of the

znamennyi raspev. Further details of Vasilenko’s interest in this subject are included in the

subsection on the Old Believers below.

177

the Madonna Tenerina, a sample of early music from Italy, has some features

comparable to Russian liturgical chants.254

5.2 Old Believers’ practices and chants and their role in Vasilenko’s musical

expression

Chant as an element of musical vocabulary and as a symbolic depiction of faith

played an important role in Vasilenko’s artistic expression. He undertook diligent

practical and scholarly research on the Old Believers’ chant, znamennyi raspev, the

prohibited movement of the Russian Orthodox Church that from the end of the

seventeenth century led a clandestine existence in spite of severe persecution.255 On

the recommendation of the Director of the Moscow Conservatoire Vasilii Safonov,

who belonged to the Old Believers,256 and of Professor Stepan Smolenskii, who was

the leading specialist on Russian liturgical music, Vasilenko was permitted to attend

Old Believers’ liturgies in Moscow, which were held in strict confidence and

forbidden to outsiders. In an unpublished article of the late 1920s, Vasilenko

explained the reasons for his thorough interest in their customs and practices.

254 For further discussion see the subsection ‘Old Believers’ practices and chants and their role in

Vasilenko’s musical expression’. 255 Only in 1905, did the last Russian tsar, Nicholas II, impose a law of religious tolerance towards

the Old Believers. 256 For further reference see: 1. Aleksandr Gol’denveizer, Vospominaniia (Moscow: Deka-VS, 2009),

221. 2. Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe

izdatel’stvo, 1948), 29. Safonov belonged to the liberal wing of this movement called the

Edinovertsy [Coreligionists], which was the only legal denomination of the Old Believers in Imperial

Russia. However, the fact that Safonov belonged to this denomination has not been publicised. This

movement was an attempt to unify the traditional Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believers,

who submitted to the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in return for their right to use old

books and rites.

178

[…] In 1899-1901, I was very much interested in the Old Believers’ singing, visited

their services and eagerly studied the kriuki notation. Owing to the recommendation

of my unforgettable teacher of the History of Church Singing Stepan Vasil’evich

Smolenskii, I went to see the secret church services at the Rogozhskii and

Preobrazhenskii cemeteries,257 became acquainted with the singers of their choirs

and collected a great number of authentic ancient tunes based on the kriuki. At this

time, I was hardly interested in the confessional forms of the religion, but in the

most vivid manifestation of religious ecstasy. […]258

This practical experience made a profound musical impact on the young

composer, though the essence of their faith did not appeal to him. Vasilenko learnt

not only the technical components of the znamennyi raspev, but also the vitality of

its musical expression, which using minimum resources depicted deep religious

devotion and prayer.259

257The Rogozhskii and Preobrazhenskii cemeteries were the burial and spiritual centres of the Old

Believers in Moscow. Nevertheless, the Old Believers were legally banned from providing full church

services, including the Holy Liturgy. Despite the prohibition, the Liturgies were performed behind

closed doors and Vasilenko was trusted to attend them only due to his connections. The author of

this thesis visited the Rogozhskii centre in July 2013. Today, it is the largest Old Believers’

administrative and spiritual centre in Moscow, though the cemetery is a municipal non-

denominational burial site and one of three churches, the Church of St Nicholas, belongs to the

main Russian Orthodox Church. 258 Sergei Vasilenko, Vokal’nye proizvedeniia [Vocal Works]. Housed in GDMC, fund 36 (Kollektsiia

avtografov i redkikh dokumentov) [Collection of Autographs and Rare Documents], op. 1, ed. khr. 7,

pp. 1-2. 259 A fine anthology of the znamennyi chants from the collection of the State Public Scientific

Technological Library of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences is available now in

an electronic format owing to an internet project ‘The Fund of Znamennyi Chants’ that was founded

in 2003. It also offers contemporary recordings and pre-revolutionary textbooks on the znamennyi

chants with instructions on their technical components and methods of reading. Further reference

179

Vasilenko’s first major composition, a cantata The Legend of the Great City

of Kitezh and the Quiet Lake Svetoyar op. 5 written in 1902, was composed using

the authentic tunes of the Old Believers and schismatic legends from the Volga

region. It was dedicated to Safonov, who conducted its premiere at the concert of the

Russian Music Society on 16 February, 1902, in Moscow.260 Vasilenko received a

Gold Medal for this composition and his work anticipated Nikolai Rimskii-

Korsakov’s opera on the same subject in 1904. Rimskii-Korsakov highly praised

Vasilenko’s cantata after a private audition of this work organised at his request by

Safonov in October 1902 with Vasilenko and Aleksandr Gol’denveizer performing

on two pianos:261 ‘I did like your work very much. The instrumentation is simply

brilliant. You used glissando of trombones, which I have never utilized before.’262

The introduction of the cantata starts in B minor with an opening theme entrusted to

trombones. Vasilenko did not specify the titles of the authentic tunes and the

sections in which he integrated them in his score.263 However, the author of this

in: Fond znamennykh pesnopenii [Fund of Znamennyi Chants], http://znamen.ru (accessed

September 11, 2012). 260 Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov, Pis’ma. Stat’i. Vospominaniia [Letters. Articles. Memoirs], ed. Nikolai

Sokolov (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1986), 306. Following the advice of Mikhail Ippolitov-

Ivanov, Vasilenko re-arranged this cantata as an opera in two acts and staged it at the Moscow

Mamontov Private Opera on 23 March 1903. It was conducted by Ippolitov-Ivanov with the stage

design and decorations made by Apollinarii Vasnetsov and Kazimir Malevich. However, the opera

libretto was not effective for a stage production and so the production ceased the following season. 261 The manuscript of the cantata arranged by Vasilenko for two pianos is housed in RGALI, fund

952, op. 1, ed. khr. 68. 262 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, Moi uchitelia i druz’ia. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr.

413, p. 2. 263 The clergy of the churches that Vasilenko visited did not allow him to copy the tunes of the

chants that were performed at the ceremonies, because they did not want these tunes to be

performed by the pagans as they called all those who did not belong to the Russian Orthodox Old-

http://znamen.ru/

180

thesis was fortunate to discover that this opening theme is an authentic tune of the

znamennyi chant called Bog Gospod’ [God is the Lord], which was performed daily

at the early morning church-service of the Old Believers communities.264 Vasilenko

only transposed it a minor third down and slightly altered its rhythm.

Example 5.2a Vasilenko, Skazanie o velikom grade Kitezhe i tikhom ozere

Svetoiare, op. 5, fragment, Maestoso, bars 1-4: Sergei

Vasilenko, Vstuplenie i ariia gusliara. Skazanie o velikom

grade Kitezhe i tikhom ozere Svetoiare, op. 5 [The

Introduction and Aria of a Gusli Player. The Legend of the

Great City of Kitezh and the Quiet Lake Svetoyar] (Moscow,

Leipzig: Jurgenson, 1902), 3. Reproduced by permission of

the British Library, London.

Example 5.2b Bog Gospod’. The original Old Believers znamennyi tune no.

7: Fond znamennykh pesnopenii [Fund of Znamennyi

Chants]. http://znamen.ru

Rite Church. Therefore, Vasilenko had to rely on his musical memory and write the tunes down at

home, which he then used as the musical material for his own melodies. Sergei Vasilenko,

Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979), 103-105. 264 This tune is listed as no. 7 in the section ‘Na utreni. Bog Gospod’ [In the Morning. God is the Lord]

among the collection of the znamennyi chants in: http://znamen.ru (accessed March 10, 2013).

http://znamen.ru/

http://znamen.ru/

181

This theme is followed by an aria of a gusli player, who sings the tale of

Kitezh, which the Old Believers associated with the holy city, where the true

believers could openly lead their religious life.265 The music exhibits continuous

melodic and note repetition that was characteristic of the znamennyi chants, which

Vasilenko opposed with rhythmic and meter flexibility. This is the only part of the

cantata that was published for the first and last time in 1902 by Iurgenson.266

Unfortunately, this cantata was never recorded and remains in manuscript. It is

likely that this obvious musical association with the recognizable chants of the

prohibited Old Believers’ movement on the public concert stage became the focal

265 For further reference see: 1. Natal’ia Ponyrko, ed., “Legenda o grade Kitezhe [The Legend of the

City of Kitezh],” in Biblioteka literatury drevnei Rusi. XIII vek [The Library of the Literature of Ancient

Russia. Thirteenth Century], vol. 5, ed. Dmitrii Likhachev, Lev Dmitriev, Anatolii Alekseev, and

Natal’ia Ponyrko (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1997), 168-183. 2. Vasilii Leonidovich Komarovich,

Kitezhskaia legenda. Opyt izucheniia mestnykh legend [The Legend of Kitezh. The Learning

Experience of Local Legends] (Moscow, Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1936), 157-173. 266 Sergei Vasilenko, Vstuplenie i ariia gusliara. Skazanie o velikom grade Kitezhe i tikhom ozere

Svetoiare. Text by Nikolai Manykin-Nevstruev (Moscow, Leipzig: P. Iurgenson, 1902), 1-13.

182

point for tsarist censorship and was the consequent reason for the withdrawal of this

work from the concert repertoire.267

Znamennyi raspev, melismatic liturgical singing in unison, used to be the

only singing tradition in the Russian Orthodox Church up until the reforms of

Patriarch Nikon in the mid-seventeenth century. 268 These church reforms introduced

a polyphonic way of singing influenced by the West, in particular Poland, Germany

and Italy,269 and brought in the modern five-line staff notation in place of the

267 Vasilenko’s cantata was intended for concert performance and could not possibly compete in

size and grandeur of stage effect with the opera of Rimskii-Korsakov on the same subject. Despite

the religious background of the legend of Kitezh and of St. Fevroniia of Murom that Rimskii-

Korsakov adapted for his opera, his fine work is secular in its musical expression, whereas in

Vasilenko’s cantata, the implementation of the authentic Russian chants placed a stronger focus on

its religious context. 268 Further musicological sources concerning the Old Believers’ practices and Russian melismatic

singing are still very limited in English. Among them: 1. Nicholas Brill, History of Russian Church

Music, 988-1917 (Bloomington: Nicholas Brill, Illinois State University, 1982), 13-44. 2. Alfred J.

Swan, Russian Music and its Sources in Chant and Folk-song (London: John Baker Ltd., 1973), 29-44.

3. Dmitrii Conomos, The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy and Music

(Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1985), 82-170. 269 Iurii Kholopov (1932-2003), a prominent Russian musicologist and music theorist, was of the

opinion that these church reforms were largely influenced by the development within the Orthodox

Church and the treatise ‘Musikiiskaia grammatika’ [Musical Grammar] dated 1679-1681 and written

by the first Russian music theorist Nikolai Diletskii. Further reference in: Iurii Kholopov, “Russkaia

filosofiia muzyki i trudy Alekseia Loseva [Russian Musical Philosophy and the Works of Aleksei

Losev],” in Voprosy klassicheskoi filologii. Vypusk XI [Questions of Classical Philology. Edition XI], ed.

Aza Takho-Godi (Moscow: MGU, 1996), 240-248. However, Diletskii gained his ideas directly from

the West as he studied at the Jesuit Academy of Vilna (Vilnius, the present capital of Lithuania), one

of the oldest universities in Eastern Europe founded in 1579 by the Society of Jesus, a religious order

of the Roman Catholic Church. The curriculum at the Academy was taught in Latin. In addition,

contemporary researchers question Diletskii’s nationality, who possibly had Polish, Jewish and

Ukrainian roots. Further reference may be found in: Irina Gerasimova, “K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii

kompozitora Nikolaia Diletskogo [Towards the Question of the Origins of the Composer Nikolai

183

symbols called kriuki that developed from Byzantine neumatic notation. Vasilenko

recalled the difficulties of reading this notation:

[…] The ancient symbols called kriuki did not represent any individual sounds.

These symbols had curious titles such as ‘golubchik borzyi’ [‘my swift dove’], ‘dva

v chelnu’ [‘two in a canoe’], ‘nemka kudriavaia’ [‘a curly German lady’] etc., and

represented a whole complexity of notes. One had to learn this endless number of

symbols like characters in Chinese grammar and also have knowledge of their

combinations. […]270

Writing in the late 1940s, Vasilenko expressed deep sorrow that the

collection of the kriuki books that was brought together by Smolenskii at the

Sinodal’naia [Synodal] School in Moscow, which specialised in church singing, was

irretrievably lost when the school was liquidated by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

[…] Certainly, I do not share the belief of the enthusiast Smolenskii that the kriuki

books are the only treasure of Russian ancient music and that these tunes can be

used for writing dozens of symphonies and operas. However, I thoroughly regret

that this unique heritage, if it has not yet been lost, is still not deciphered. […]271

Diletskii],” in Drevnerusskoe pesnopenie. Puti vo vremeni. Vypusk 4. Materialy nauchnoi konferentsii

‘Brazhnikovskie chteniia 2008-2009’ [Old Russian Chant. The Paths of Time. Edition 4. The Handbook

of the Musicological Conference ‘Brazhnikov Readings 2008-2009’], eds. Al’bina Kruchinina and

Natal’ia Ramzanova (St. Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia Konservatoriia imeni Rimskogo-Korsakova,

2010), 163-173. 270 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op.1, ed.

khr. 410, p. 39. The signs have names and spiritual symbols. Thus, ‘golubchik borzyi’ represents two

ascending sounds and a symbol of the Holy Ghost. Further reference in: E. A. Grigor’ev, Posobie po

izucheniiu tserkovnogo znamennogo peniia [Handbook of Znamennyi Chant Church Singing Studies]

(Riga: Rizhskaia grebenshchikovskaia staroobriadcheskaia obshchina, 1992), 32-49. 271 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed.

khr. 410, p. 41. For further information on the Smolenskii collection of manuscripts see: Nicholas

184

Znamennyi raspev was composed using different compositional modi

operandi to Western musical systems. At the same time, it had characteristics

comparable to the plainsong notated in neumes that was used for the body of chants

and motets in the Roman Catholic Church. Likewise, the znamennyi raspev was of

monophonic origin with a melody in conjunct motion that followed a pitch system

of whole and half-steps, though the scale was over an octave.

Vasilenko’s practical expertise in the znamennyi raspev certainly influenced

his aural perception of early liturgical music in general. Vasilenko emphasised that

he was captivated by the Old Believers’ practices largely due to the effect of their

genuine tunes that provoked and strengthened the religious zeal of the worshippers

without any additional embellishments to beautify the ceremony. The exceptional

manifestation of religious belief and prayer combined with the musical asceticism

typical of the znamennyi raspev is also demonstrated in the second piece Madonna Brill, History of Russian Church Music, 988-1917 (Bloomington: Nicholas Brill, Illinois State

University, 1982), 141-142. Fortunately, research on the kriuki notation and the early liturgical

chants continued during Soviet rule. Maksim Viktorovich Brazhnikov (1902-1973) was a musicologist

and the pre-eminent scholar on Russian early liturgical music in the USSR, who deciphered

numerous manuscripts. In 1940, Brazhnikov was sacked from his research post at the Hermitage in

Leningrad, but managed to convince Stalin by writing of the importance of this heritage for the

country. Stalin gave permission for him to carry out this research, though the majority of

Brazhnikov’s works have not been published and are kept in the archives of the St. Petersburg

Conservatoire and the GNMCMC, funds 23, 286, 340. Further reference may be found in: 1. Istoriia v

litsakh [History Through Faces], “Maksim Viktorovich Brazhnikov,” Russian National Library,

http://www.nlr.ru/ar/staff/braj.htm (accessed September 11, 2012). 2. Alexander Ivashkin,

“Shostakovich, Old Believers and New Minimalists,” in Contemplating Shostakovich: Life, Music and

Film, ed. Alexander Ivashkin and Andrew Kirkman (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), 19-45. 3. Elena

Meshcherina, Muzykal’naia kul’tura srednevekovoi Rusi [Musical Culture of Medieval Russia]

(Moscow: Kanon, 2008), 49-55. 4. Mariia Lebedinskaia, Den’ za dnem. Vospominaniia o Maksime

Viktoroviche Brazhnikove [Day after Day. Memoirs About M.V. Brazhnikov] (St. Petersburg: Petro-

RIF, 1994).

http://www.nlr.ru/ar/staff/braj.htm

185

Tenerina from the Four Pieces on Themes of Lute Music of the Sixteenth-

Seventeenth Centuries, op. 35, for viola and piano written in 1918. The Madonna

Tenerina is based on an instrumental sample of early music from Italy that

Vasilenko discovered in archives.272 The outcome of Vasilenko’s stylization in the

lute pieces is very appealing and thoughtful, and communicates with a contemporary

audience without requiring knowledge of all the details of the Baroque style and

mentality. Moreover, the austere minimalism without any embellishments of the first

theme of the Madonna Tenerina in conjunct motion that gives the impression of

“tramping” backwards and forwards between the pitches E, F#, G and A does not

develop any further and reminds one of the ascetic simplicity, plainness and

steadiness of the monodic chants. In addition, the narrative qualities of this musical

prayer addressed to the Virgin Mary are distinct from the very first bars.

Example 5.2c Vasilenko, Madonna Tenerina, fragment, Andante

misterioso, bars 1-11 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe



Edition.

272 Further discussion of the lute pieces may be found in chapter three.

186

Indeed, the visual associations of the service were of no less importance for

the composer’s perception of the music as Vasilenko’s memoirs demonstrate their

close relationship:

[…] On the hazy frosty morning at 5 o’clock [...] I entered the dark church. Ancient

ten pood deacon’s candles273 flickered with smoky flames. All members of the

congregation were in dark clothing and the women in white embroidered

headscarves as depicted in the painting of Apollinarii Vasnetsov ‘Taking the

Veil’.274 The monophonic singing in unison of a big choir was magnificent. […]275

These emblematic rituals irretrievably disappeared from the ordinary

liturgical services and became a matter of research for scholars. Besides, Vasilenko

strongly linked the Old Believers’ music with the ancient icons. In his opinion, they

both depicted the spiritual atmosphere of the irrational mystic world that was in

harmony with Vasilenko’s musical aspirations, of which more below. In the late

1940s, he recalled this in his memoirs: ‘Perhaps, this was my imagination, but, at the

time, I was deeply encouraged by this idea and eagerly studied the ancient religious

273 Pood is a unit of mass equal to approximately 16.38 kilograms, which was abolished in the USSR.

The deacon’s candle is a large candle that is held by clergymen in their hands during worship. 274 Vasilenko almost certainly confused Apollinarii Vasnetsov (1856-1933), who specialised in scenes

of medieval Russia, with Mikhail Nesterov (1862-1942), who was indeed the author of the ‘Velikii

postrig’ [Taking the Veil], 1898 (housed in the State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg). Nesterov

called this painting a symbolic requiem for his lost love for a young singer, who refused to become

his wife. This picture depicts an Old Believers’ hermitage in the woods with a procession of women

in dark clothing with deacon’s candles in their hands. Among the prioress and nuns is a young

woman, in a white embroidered headscarf, who is taking the veil. Further reference in: 1. Irina

Nikonova, Mikhail Vasil’evich Nesterov (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1984), 64-65. 2. Ekaterina Gromova,

Mikhail Nesterov (Moscow: Olma, 2011), 26-27. 275 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed.

khr. 410, p. 40.

187

paintings.’276 It is not without reason that Vasilenko compared the Old Believers’

services to the paintings of his friend Nesterov, who was a leading representative of

religious Symbolism in Russian art.

[…] A devout Orthodox Christian, Nesterov, dedicated his pre-revolutionary

paintings to the depiction of souls alienated from the world. These paintings had a

huge influence on my musical creativity. They captured my imagination but not

because of their holiness and religious feeling. A certain ineffable light and the

otherworldly ambience were in accord with my artistic intellect. […]277

These symbolic visual and narrative associations correlating with the most

effective impact of sacred music were Vasilenko’s primary aspirations, which he

fulfilled not only in his cantata and in the Madonna Tenerina. Vasilenko’s interest in

the Old Believers’ rhetoric combined with the poetry of the Russian symbolists of

the Silver Age was demonstrated in the third romance Raskol’nich’e [Schismatic]

after the poem of Konstantin Bal’mont Ty sveti, sveti [You Shine, Shine] from the

vocal cycle Zaklinaniia [Incantations] op. 16, 1909, for soprano and piano, which

was published in 1911.278 Vasilenko’s two poems Vir’ and Vdova [Widow] for bass

and orchestra op. 6, 1903, also follow the same route. They were composed after the

276 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed.

khr. 412, p. 11. 277 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed.

khr. 412, p. 39. Vasilenko was a friend of many Russian painters, including Mikhail Vrubel’ and Viktor

Borisov-Musatov, important representatives of Russian Symbolism. Vasilenko’s thorough interest in

correlations of colour, visual images and music occupy a significant place in his works. Further

discussion of these subjects and the influences of Symbolism is included in the separate subsection

below. 278 Sergei Vasilenko, Incantations Pour Chant et Piano, op. 16 (Moscow: Iurgenson, 1911). This work

was premiered by Vera Petrova-Zvantseva and Sergei Vasilenko in Moscow in 1911.

188

poetry with the same titles by Ivan Bunin and Iakov Polonskii respectively, and

dedicated by Vasilenko to Fedor Shaliapin. The first poem is in G minor. It depicts

an Old Believers’ hermitage hidden in a dark wood and protected by a wild bird

called vir’. The bell ringing for evening prayer and the smoky flames of candles

enrich the mysteriousness of the ascetic harsh habitat of the worshipers. Its sombre

ritual melody written in the low register, gradually gains almost continuous note

repetition, similar to Vasilenko’s writing in the cantata Kitezh.

Example 5.2d Vasilenko, Vir’, fragment, Moderato, bars 7-15: Sergei


Perelozhenie dlia basa s fortepiano. Vir’, slova Ivana Bunina.

Vdova, slova Iakova Polonskogo [Two Poems for Bass with

Orchestra, op. 6. Arrangement for Bass and Piano. ‘Vir’, Text

by Ivan Bunin. ‘Widow’, Text by Iakov Polonskii] (Moscow,

Leipzig: Jurgenson, 1905), 3. Reproduced by permission of

the British Library, London.

189

Example 5.2e Vasilenko, Skazanie Vasilenko, Skazanie o velikom grade

Kitezhe i tikhom ozere Svetoiare, op. 5, fragment, Maestoso,

bars 25-34: Sergei Vasilenko, Vstuplenie i ariia gusliara.

Skazanie o velikom grade Kitezhe i tikhom ozere Svetoiare,

op. 5 (Moscow, Leipzig: Jurgenson, 1902), 3. Reproduced by

permission of the British Library, London.

190

Example 5.2f Vasilenko, Vir’, fragment, Piu lento, bars 29-32: Sergei


Perelozhenie dlia basa s fortepiano. Vir’, slova Ivana Bunina.

Vdova, slova Iakova Polonskogo (Moscow, Leipzig:

Jurgenson, 1905), 4. Reproduced by permission of the British

Library, London.

It then develops from lento to allegro strepitoso, its register expands with long leaps

and both parts oppose each other with poly-metre. Unfortunately, none of these fine

compositions were ever recorded, though they were published once in 1905.279

279 Sergei Vasilenko, Poemy dlia basa s orkestrom. Perelozhenie dlia basa s fortepiano, op. 6 [Poems

for Bass and Orchestra, op. 6. Arrangement for Bass and Piano] (Moscow: P. Iurgenson, 1905), 1-26.

The first poem was premiered by Vasilii Petrov (bass) and Sergei Vasilenko (conductor) in Kislovodsk

in 1906; the second poem was premiered in Berlin in 1909. For further reference see: Sergei

Vasilenko, “Moi vospominaniia o Vasilii Rodionoviche Petrove,” in Vasilii Rodionovich Petrov.

Sbornik statei i materialov, ed. Igor’ Belza (Moscow: Muzgiz, 1953), 128-134.

191

The religious theme with a symbolic narrative interpretation continues in

Vasilenko’s romance no. 1, op. 13, 1908, Devushka pela v tserkovnom khore [The

Girl Sang in a Church Choir] after a poem of Aleksandr Blok with the same title.280

At first glance, one may interpret this romance as a refined lyrical composition about

a girl whose beautiful singing in a church brings hope and belief in a better life to

her listeners. The image of ships leaving the bay represented imaginative dreams

floating away, which was a typical element of the symbolic poetry of the Silver

Age.281 However, this text has a special historical and religious context hidden in the

background. The poem was written in August 1905, and in May 1905 two-thirds of

the Russian fleet was destroyed in the battle of Tsushima between Japan and Russia,

which was a devastating loss for Russia. Thus, this romance is not only a nostalgic

picturesque narrative but a symbolic musical prayer for all who gave their lives for

their homeland. The last two lines of the work point to the Royal Doors and a child

who is crying about those who will never come back. Traditionally, an icon with the

Mother of God Hodegetria with the Child Jesus in her hands is placed on an

iconostasis in an Orthodox Church on the left from the Royal Doors282 thus opening

a pathway to prayer and directing one to the only source of redemption for sins.

280 Sergei Vasilenko, Romansy [Romances] no. 1-3, op. 13 (Moscow, Leipzig: Iurgenson, 1909). The

romance no. 1 was also published in English and French: Sergei Vasilenko, The Singing Maiden. La

jeune fille chantait (London, Brighton: J&W. Chester, 1917). A recording of this romance performed

in Russian by Ivan Kozlovskii (tenor) and Petr Nikitin (piano) has survived. Housed in London: BL,

shelf number 1LP 0134518 S1 BD4 Melodiia. The text of this romance is enclosed in Appendix 5. 281 Roman Iakobson, “Stikhotvornye proritsaniia Aleksandra Bloka [Poetic Divination of Aleksandr

Blok],” in Roman Iakobson, Raboty po poetike [Works on Poetics], ed. Mikhail Gasparov (Moscow:

Progress, 1987), 254-266. 282 Hodegetria translates from Greek as ‘She who shows the way’. This type of icons depicts the

Virgin Mary holding the Child Jesus and pointing at Him as the only means of salvation for mankind.

192

The theme of this romance correlates with Vasilenko’s sketches of a

symphonic poem for chorus and orchestra Obraz Bozhiei Materi Odigitrii [The

Image of the Mother of God Hodegetria] as well as the Angel skorbi [Angel of

Sorrow] for an unaccompanied chorus, which he destroyed.283 One may call

Vasilenko’s approach religious Symbolism in music, which was a challenging

aspiration as it ran contrary to both strict traditions of Russian and Western sacred

music. However, this explains Vasilenko’s brief comment in his memoirs, in which

he listed his orchestral lute suite op. 24, 1912, which was used as the basis for his

lute cycle for viola and piano, among the works that were influenced by Symbolism

and Impressionism, including the symphonic poems Sad smerti [The Garden of

Death] op. 12 and Polet ved’m [Flight of the Witches] op. 15. They were written at

the time when his little son Aleksei died in 1908.284 It is likely that Vasilenko’s

approach to religious subjects in music was not only a tribute to Vasilenko’s ‘artistic

intellect’ as he pointed out in his memoirs, but also a symbolic echo of his personal

loss. Regardless of the true motives of Vasilenko’s implementation, his unique

practical encounters, exploration and re-discoveries of the authentic means of

Russian religious musical expression enhanced the quality and merits of his sacred

compositions and brought them closer to their original attributes.

These icons are traditionally displayed at the altar on the left of the Royal Doors of the iconostasis in

an Eastern Orthodox Church. For further reference see: Roderick Grierson, ed. Gates of Mystery.

The Art of Holy Russia (Fort Worth, Texas: InterCultura and the Russian State Museum, 1994), 11-59,

121. 283 Sergei Vasilenko, Vokal’nye proizvedeniia. Housed in GDMC, fund 36, op. 1, ed. khr. 7, p. 2. 284 Further reference in: 1. Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow, Leningrad:

Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1948), 123. 2. Georgii Polianovskii, Sergei Vasilenko

(Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1947), 67.

193

Notably, Sergei Taneev, who broadly used Russian liturgical themes in his

works, showed a pessimistic attitude to the kriuki material that Vasilenko used in his

cantata, 285 and Nikolai Rimskii-Korsakov expressed disbelief in their authenticity,

pointing out that after two hundred years of persecution these chants would acquire

some elements of folklore. Rimskii-Korsakov was right to a degree as traditionally

there are no hymn books in an Orthodox Church and the congregation learns the

tunes by ear. Besides, by the end of the seventeenth century, there was a split within

the Old Believers into two principal movements: popovtsy [with priests] and a more

conservative group called bezpopovtsy [without priests],286 which consequently led

to the adaptation of their singing practices according to the needs of each respective

community, which did not always have enough singers.287 Traditionally, only male

singers were allowed to sing in a church. However, due to the shortage, untrained

female and male singers would step in, who learnt the tunes aurally during the

services rather than by studying the kriuki books and thus naturally added local folk

285 Vasilenko remembered a caprice based on the themes of Vasilenko’s cantata that his friend Iurii

Sakhnovskii played on the piano in the styles of Bach, Handel and Mozart illustrating Taneev’s

admiration for these composers and his unenthusiastic attitude to the kriuki. Sakhnovskii concluded

his improvisation with the following comment addressed to Taneev: ‘Sergei Ivanovich being very

happy that he teased Vasilenko departs in a bad cab to Klin.’ Taneev listened and laughed himself to

tears. Sergei Vasilenko, Gody obshcheniia s S.I. Taneevym. Housed in RGALI, fund 2465, op. 1, ed.

khr. 939, pp. 20-21. Further discussion of Taneev’s influence may be found in the subsection ‘Song

and counterpoint: the influence of Glinka and Taneev’. 286 Both movements believe in the importance of priesthood. However, the bezpopvtsy rejected

those priests who ever practiced the New Rites as they considered them traitors and a threat to

spiritual salvation. The bezpopovtsy believed that all true priests who practiced the Old Rites died

during the reforms of Nikon. 287 For further information concerning the Old Believers’ practices see: Old Believers, “Rarus’s

Gallery: Muzykal’naia kul’tura staroobriadtsev [The Musical Culture of the Old Believers],”

http://www.raruss.ru/rus-christian-painting/1764-music-old-believe.html (accessed March 8, 2013).

http://www.raruss.ru/rus-christian-painting/1764-music-old-believe.html

194

elements to their practices.288 Nevertheless, the singers of the znamennyi chant were

expected to perform naturally in the style comparable to folk singing that did not

require classical vocal training. Moreover, Vasilenko’s authentic collection of tunes

came from the two main centres of the Old Believers in Moscow that did have fine

singers, who carefully preserved the singing practices of the Russian Orthodox Old-

Rite Church. This fact makes Rimskii-Korsakov’s scepticism with regard to

authenticity of the musical material inapplicable to Vasilenko’s case.

With regard to Taneev’s view, unlike Vasilenko, he could not separate the

external musical customs from the specifics of the philosophy and the eremitic way

of life of this wing of the Russian Orthodox religion, which were extraneous to his

beliefs, whereas for Vasilenko, the musical and visual impacts were the prime

objectives. This symbolic approach allowed him to combine and elaborate their

special musical elements with early musical material of Western origin and with the

poetry of the Russian symbolists of the Silver Age.

288 It is likely that there was a cross-over influence of church and folk singing practices in some Old

Believers’ communities. Thus, the folk tunes preserved by the Nekrasov Cossacks that belong to the

popovtsy movement evidently have been influenced by church singing. There are few general

characteristics of their melodies that point to this supposition: they are in conjunct motion with

note repetitions but almost no leaps; some tunes do not span more than a perfect fifth in register;

they are monodic and are written in a low register, though they are performed by a mixed choir.

The author of this thesis was privileged to listen to the authentic recording of the Nekrasov Cossacks

made in 1984 during the ethnographic expedition to their settlement in the Levokumskii district of

the Stavropol’ region organised by the Moscow Conservatoire and led by Vera Medvedeva, a

musicologist and a member of the Composer’s Union. Some of these songs were not included in the

LP ‘The Nekrasov Cossacks at the Moscow Conservatoire’ that was recorded in 1982 and produced

by the Melodiia C20 20435 009 in the USSR in 1984. Further reference on the Nekrasov Cossacks

and the samples of their songs is available thanks to the researchers Fedor and Tamara Tumilevich:

Fedor and Tamara Tumilevich, “Kazaki-nekrasovtsy: nasledie kazachestva [The Nekrasov Cossacks:

the Legacy of the Cossacks],” http://www.tumilevich.ru/index.php (accessed March 8, 2013).

http://www.tumilevich.ru/index.php

195

5.3 Orientalism

One of the specific features of Russian Nationalist composers of the nineteenth -

early twentieth century, in particularly of Glinka, Rimskii-Korsakov, Balakirev,

Borodin and Rakhmaninov, was their natural absorption and implementation of

Oriental subjects. Vasilenko too followed this route as the second section of the

viola sonata brought a particular focus on two independent vocal-type themes that

reminded one of mournful and yearning exoticism typical of the Russian-Oriental

melodic world. Lur’e emphasised this in his article ‘Linii evoliutsii russkoi muzyki’

[Lines of the Evolution of Russian Music] written in 1944: ‘The Russian East is

certainly not picturesque, but one of the main and organically inseparable elements

of Russian musical language.’289 The Oriental origin was not associated with a

single place or location on any map, but was a collective imagination of an exotic

culture with different elements drawn from the folk traditions of the Caucasus,

Chuvash, Bashkir, Arabian and other nationalities of the south and east. Balakirev,

the leader of the composers’ group ‘The Five’, argued for the use of eastern subjects

and harmonies as the means to oppose the German and Western-orientated style in

Russian music. It developed into an exotic counter-culture.290 The presence of

289 Quoted in Igor Vishnevetskii, ed., Evraziiskoe uklonenie v muzyke 20-30kh godov (Moscow:

Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2005), 304. 290 Further reference may be found in: 1. Orlando Figes, Natasha’s Dance. A Cultural History of

Russia (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 358-429. 2. Richard Taruskin, On Russian Music (Berkley, Los

Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2009), 188-189. 3. Francis Maes, A History of Russian

Music. From Kamarinskaya to Babi Yar (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California

Press, 2006), 80-83. Oriental subjects through stylization became the hidden measure of the

demonstration of forbidden political themes prohibited by the repressive Russian government and

as the means to oppose the melancholic character of Russian folksongs with the freedom of Oriental

passionate and sensuous fantasies communicated through symbolic nature. Balakirev’s Islamei and

196

oriental elements with obsessive rhythms, note repetitions, accelerated tempi,

irregular phrasing, augmented and diminished intervals and extended melismas

became the distinguishing features of Russian music. The composers of ‘The Five’

often used authentic folk melodies, but did not confine themselves exclusively to

this practice. Balakirev travelled to the Caucuses in 1862 and collected authentic

songs of this region.291 He observed that these melody-songs were all based on the

pentatonic or five-tone scale typical of the music of Asia. This finding broadened

further east the imaginary geography of Russian Oriental sources reaching China,

Japan and India.

The manuscript of Vasilenko’s autobiography dated 1922 provides

previously unknown details of his thoroughgoing interest in Oriental ethnography.

[…] From 1911, I began my exploration of Oriental music. The start of the First

World War in 1914 called off my plans of travelling to Japan, China and the islands

of the Pacific Ocean to research their native music and instruments. […]292

The first work that illustrated Vasilenko’s interest in oriental exoticism was

the Maioriiskie pesni [Maori Songs] after Konstantin Bal’mont op. 23, 1913.293

Tamara, Borodin’s Prince Igor and In the Steppes of Central Asia, Rimskii-Korsakov’s Scheherazade

and Antar illustrated the vastness of the Russian Empire with its multinational European and Asian

cultures, history and traditions with symbolic interpretations of the morality of a Western man and

the irrationality of an Eastern woman. 291 Orlando Figes, Natasha’s Dance. A Cultural History of Russia (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2003),

390-391. 292 Sergei Vasilenko, Avtobiografiia [Autobiography]. Housed in RGALI, fund 2037 (Kochetovy), op. 1,

ed. khr. 128, p. 1. Vasilenko’s interest in exotic music resulted in composing the orchestral Exotic

Suite op. 29 (1915-16), Indian Suite op. 42a (1927), Chinese Suites op. 60 (1928) and op. 70 (1931),

Japanese Suite for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon and xylophone op. 66 (1930), and Chinese Sketch

for woodwind op. 78 (1933).

197

Vasilenko found a scientific hypothesis made by the Russian anthropologist,

ethnographer and Professor of the Moscow University Dmitrii Anuchin that the

Maori, the native Polynesian people of New Zealand, originated from the

Caucasus.294 Therefore, Vasilenko added some oriental elements to his Maori Songs,

including extensive chromatic progressions and poly-meter (6/8 and 3/4), but none

of the augmented seconds traditionally associated with this style.

[…] I regard the ‘Maori Songs’ as a success, with which [...] my compositional

activities pursued the enjoyment of the East and research into exotic music. [...] I

relentlessly continued this work throughout my whole life. […]295

In 1922, Vasilenko wrote a graceful and, at the same time, virtuoso

Vostochnyi tanets [Oriental Dance] for clarinet in B-flat or viola with piano op. 47.

Its joyful and lively character and harmonic execution that despite all modulations

always reinstate a clear tonal centre are in contrast to the mood of the second section

of the sonata. The viola manuscript of this piece has been irretrievably lost and was

never published. The clarinet manuscript survived and has been preserved in the

GNMCMC (fund 52, ed. khr. 242), though the first two pages of the manuscript

have gone astray.296 The author of this thesis arranged this piece for viola and piano.

293 The manuscript of this work is housed in RGALI, fund 952 (Muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo Iurgensona),

op. 1, ed. khr. 105. 294 Contemporary scholars believe that Polynesian people originate from the area of South China.

Further reference may be found in: Peter Bellwood, James J. Fox, and Darrell Tryon, eds., The

Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (Canberra: The Australian National

University Press, 2006), 23-24, 37-38. 295 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979),

315. 296 Fortunately, this work was published at least three times in 1931 by the Gosmuzizdat and 1949

and 1959 by the Muzgiz. Therefore, the missing text could be reconstructed. The fact that it was

198

This viola edition makes adjustments to the articulation and phrasing of the clarinet

version to render this charismatic work more suitable for a stringed instrument.297

Unable to travel abroad, Vasilenko meticulously studied the elements

characteristic of the Orient, but always trusted his own judgment:

[…] “Digging” through the books and articles I tried to uncover the methods of

exotic music and the mysteries of its harmonisation. After two months I got fed up

with the study of the theory of the Eastern modes, pitches, instruments and other

various systems. [...] Setting the theories aside, which in my opinion were

completely unnecessary for compositional activities, I persisted in collecting

musical material and harmonised it as I felt psychologically fitting. […]298

Among his works with an oriental influence is the ballet-pantomime Noiia

[Noya] op. 42, 1923, completed a few months before the viola sonata.299 Rogal'-

Levitskii substantiated the fact that Vasilenko’s exoticism was different from the

banal formulas and replications of original tunes and made a connection between

these works.

[…] It would be reasonable to perceive the sonata as independent from other works

of this period. However, knowing this ballet and having listened to the sonata, it

also intended for viola is confirmed in: 1. Georgii Polianovskii, Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko i ego

tvorchestvo (Moscow: Muzyka, 1964), 259. 2. Georgii Ivanov, Sergei Nikiforovich Vasilenko.

Notograficheskii spravochnik (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1973), 35. 297 The score of this viola edition is attached to this thesis. 298 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979),

315-316. 299 This ballet was based on the melodies of Indian, Japanese, Vietnamese and Chinese folklore.

Vasilenko re-approached the musical material of the Noya in the Legend, in one of his viola pieces of

the early 1950s. For further information about the ballet Noya and the Legend see Appendix 3.

199

strikes one how similar they are in their essence. [...] A thorough study of the sonata

allows one to associate this work with Vasilenko’s oriental compositions. […]300

It is virtually impossible to verify the resemblance between the sonata and

ballet as Noya was neither staged nor published. However, taking into account the

discussion above, one may say that the pursuit of exotic strands was indeed

characteristic of Vasilenko’s works of this period. In an unpublished article of the

late 1920s, Vasilenko stressed the point that he changed his rhetoric in his

compositions of 1913-1926: ‘The second half of 1913 until 1926 was the period of a

major turning from my previous style of writing. Love and exoticism became

sources of inspiration for me.’301

Vasilenko showed traditionalism in employing oriental elements in the

sonata, but offered a different thematic interpretation. He supplemented the first

theme in the second section with a term amorevole, a symbolic description of

sensual fantasies and exoticism, which became a typical subject-matter associated

with the Orient, and also with a phrase quasi campana that translates from Spanish

as ‘similar to a bell or chime’. Historically, most certainly this theme of a sacred

intimate feeling would have been the most distant from any associative links with

oriental expression. In his memoirs, Vasilenko compared his visualization of folk

music from the Caucasus with fantastic frescos of ancient times.302 It showed the

300 Dmitrii Rogal’-Levitskii, Sergei Vasilenko i ego al’tovaia sonata (Moscow: Muzykal’nyi sektor,

1927), 9. 301 Sergei Vasilenko, Vokal’nye proizvedeniia. Housed in GDMC, fund 36, op. 1, ed. khr. 7, p. 3. Most

certainly, Vasilenko’s admiration for Tat’iana Shevaldysheva, his future wife, was a contributing

factor. 302 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1948), 125.

200

individuality of the composer, who fearlessly blended two traditionally incompatible

topics together.

5. 4 Song and counterpoint: the influence of Glinka and Taneev

Vasilenko was a melodist, who placed special emphasis on the melodic outline and

linear development of themes in the sonata and his other viola works. Aleksandr

Grechaninov boosted Vasilenko’s initial interest in vocal music during their lessons

in the early 1890s. ‘Grechaninov was a passionate follower of ‘The Five’. [...] He

adored Russian songs. From him, I gained an interest in and an ambition to learn

Russian folklore.’303 In an unpublished article of the late 1920s, Vasilenko verified

the importance of this genre in his style and divided his vocal compositions into

three periods: 1896-1904, 1906-1913 and 1913-1926 that corresponded to his

inspirations; firstly, from Tchaikovskii and Rimskii-Korsakov, then Russian

Symbolism with strong emphasis on folk customs304 and, finally, exotic themes.

[…] I regard highly the process of composing romances, similar to orchestration. I

consider a romance as an intact dramatic scene, but in a compact structure that,

therefore, requires much more intensive work and temperament. In an opera, one

may take a few pages to describe a scene, whereas here one has to outline the same

with only a distinct stroke and often within a single musical phrase. Since my first

vocal writing, I have always strived to achieve two elements: to reproduce the most

303 Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia. Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed.

khr. 409, p. 16. 304 Vasilenko composed many romances after the poetry of Russian Symbolist poets, including

Konstantin Bal’mont, Valerii Briusov, Aleksandr Blok and Sergei Gorodetskii. For further reference to

Vasilenko’s list of works see Appendix 2.

201

comprehensive and psychologically adequate accompaniment [...] and to preserve a

pure musical form. […]305

Vasilenko followed this route of preserving musical structures and

decorating his melodies with divergent harmonic and stylistic modes in the sonata

giving them the elements of a romance and Eastern exoticism. This method he

described in his unpublished archival writing dated 1949, more than a quarter of a

century after the completion of this sonata.

[…] For many years of my life I have collected Russian songs and I came up with

particular methods of arranging them. It is not enough to come across a fine Russian

melody that has opportunities for extensive alteration. One needs to adorn it with an

appropriate harmonic costume and find a matching style according to the origins of

the song, whether the North, the Central Regions or the South. […]306

Vasilenko’s interest in melodic development encouraged him to combine

different genres in the sonata: song elements in the first two sections and typical

features of a fugato with an exposition and a counter-exposition in the third and the

fourth sections, thus modernising the sonata form. The unusual synthesis of

counterpoint and song elements combined in a single work was initially introduced

by Mikhail Glinka, who was the first composer who implemented Russian subjects

on a large scale.307 The emphasis on the national musical identity over the European

305 Sergei Vasilenko, Vokal’nye proizvedeniia. Housed in GDMC, fund 36, op. 1, ed. khr. 7, p. 1. 306 Sergei Vasilenko, Avtobiograficheskie zapisi [Autobigrafical Notes]. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579,

op. 1, ed. khr. 408, p. 2. 307 Glinka highly regarded his studies of composition and counterpoint with Siegfried Dehn in Berlin

in 1833-34 that boosted Glinka’s ideas about writing national music. ‘He organised my knowledge

and, in four small notebooks, he wrote especially for me the ‘Science of Harmony or General Bass’,

the ‘Science of Melody or Counterpoint’ and ‘Instrumentation’. I wanted to publish them, but Dehn

202

influence was growing in Russia towards the second half of the nineteenth

century.308 Sergei Taneev was a strong advocate of Glinka’s idea of combining

counterpoint originating from Western Europe with a Russian folk-song of Slavonic,

East European origin. This synthesis became Taneev’s utopian goal in search of a

distinctive Russian instrumental form as he considered the mission of any Russian

composer to refine a unique Russian style. Taneev clarified his proposal ‘Chto delat’

russkim kompozitoram?’ [What Needs to be Done by Russian Composers?] in his

notebook in February 1879 that explains Vasilenko's approach in his sonata.

[...] We do not have a national music. [...] The task of every Russian composer

consists in furthering the creation of a national music. [...] We have to apply to

Russian song the same thought process which has been applied to the song of

Western peoples. We will then have a national music. Begin with elementary

contrapuntal forms, pass to more complex ones, elaborate the form of the Russian

fugue, and from there it is only a step to complex instrumental types. The Europeans

took centuries to get there, we need far less. We know the way, the goal, we can

profit by their experience.309

did not agree. There is no doubt that I am obliged to Dehn more than to any other maestro. [...] He

organised not only my knowledge but my ideas about the art of music in general. His lectures were

the starting point of my work - consciously rather than blindly as before. [...] The idea of writing

national music, though not yet operatic, became clearer.’ Mikhail Glinka, Zapiski [Notes] (Moscow:

Gareeva, 2004), 101-102. Glinka’s first major national works were his operas Zhizn’ za tsaria [A Life

for the Tsar] and Ruslan i Liudmila [Ruslan and Lyudmila]. 308 For further reference to the emergence of Russian national consciousness see: 1. Marina Frolova-

Walker, Russian Music and Nationalism. From Glinka to Stalin (New Haven & London: Yale

University Press, 2007), 74-226. 2. Richard Stites, Serfdom, Society, and the Arts in Imperial Russia

(New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2005), 84-398. 309 The manuscript of this article is housed in GDMC and is reprinted fully in Aminova’s book.

Quoted in Galima Aminova, Otechestvennye istoki tvorchestva Sergeia Ivanovicha Taneeva

203

Taneev, who taught Vasilenko and Skriabin composition at the Moscow

Conservatoire, was a renowned expert on musical forms and his colleagues

ironically called him an academic and alchemist for his broad knowledge, erudition

and diligent approach to the purity and precision of musical forms, styles and

language. Taneev was a master of counterpoint and in his treatise Podvizhnoi

kontrapunkt strogogo pis’ma [Convertible Counterpoint in the Strict Style] written

in 1889-1906 he explained the laws of counterpoint from the aspects of genuine

logic and mathematics.310 He regarded classical concepts of a composition as a pure

rationale of technique that was extraneous to anything spontaneous. Vasilenko

remembered that Taneev advised him to complete his study of law at Moscow

University, when Vasilenko wanted to give it up in favour of music. Taneev pointed

out that perhaps Vasilenko would rarely use ‘the dreary dogmas of Ancient Rome,

but these logical exercises were excellent for the intellect and mind. As a result, all

the other subjects, including counterpoint and musical forms, would be easy to

grasp.’311

The method of intensive development of themes that tightly unify and

amalgamate different thematic material in a work was traditional for Russian

composers, including Tchaikovskii, Rimskii-Korsakov and Taneev. As one of the

best students of this highly competent and hypercritical theorist, Vasilenko was (Krasnoiarsk: Gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2006), 217-218. All major monographs on Taneev are in

Russian. Among them: 1. Leonid Sabaneev, Vospominaniia o Taneeve [Reminiscences about Taneev]

(Moscow: Klassika-XXI, 2003). 2. Grigorii Bernandt, Sergei Ivanovich Taneev (Moscow: Muzyka,

1983). 3. Boleslav Iavorskii, “Vospominaniia o Taneeve [Memoirs about Taneev],” in Izbrannoe.

Pis’ma. Vospominaniia [Selected Works. Letters. Memoirs] (Moscow: Kompozitor, 2008), 157-281. 310 Sergei Taneev, Podvizhnoi kontrapunkt strogogo pis’ma (Moscow: Muzyka, 1959). Sergei Taneev,

Convertible Counterpoint in the Strict Style (Boston: Bruce Humphries, 1962). 311 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1948), 82.

204

greatly influenced by Taneev’s methods and ideas. This influence is evident in this

sonata in the use of combined fugal and song elements.312 Vasilenko pointed out in

his memoirs that Taneev scrupulously and fastidiously worked on his development

sections, and his plans of these sections often had interesting methodologies,

including the absence of the tonic but the presence of a new ‘central’ key and new

episodic themes. 313 Thus, the absence of a home key D minor and the appearance of

312 Paul Hindemith used a comparable approach in his works, including viola sonatas. He was the

only composer, who placed special emphasis on the viola as a solo instrument equally in both his

compositional and performing activities at the beginning of the twentieth century. Hindemith

occasionally combined his contrapuntal language with the elements of folksongs, certainly of

German origin. Among them are the second movement of his Sonata for Viola and Piano op. 11 and

the concerto for viola and orchestra Der Schwanendreher, 1935. However, the obvious polarity of

the national idioms of the composers’ folkloric elements rooted in German and Russian cultures

point to the uniqueness of their compositional influences that developed concurrently but

independently. In addition, Hindemith wrote the majority of his sonatas for viola and piano and solo

viola opp. 11, 25 and 31 between 1919-1923 with only two late sonatas of 1937 and 1939. Vadim

Borisovskii was the first performer of Hindemith’s sonatas in the Soviet Union after his concert tour

to Germany in 1927. Thus, the premier of Hindemith’s sonatas in the Soviet Union occurred some

four years later after the completion and premier of the viola sonata by Sergei Vasilenko in 1923.

Further reference on the performance of Hindemith’s viola works in the USSR may be found in:

Stanislav Poniatovskii, Istoriia al’tovogo iskusstva (Moscow: Muzyka, 2007), 222. Hindemith’s sonata

op. 11 still blends reminiscences of Romanticism, but the other sonatas gradually expound a leaner

complex neoclassic style through highly dissonant language. The significance of rhythm in

Vasilenko’s sonata, the expansion of tonal harmony and a certain abrupt emotional restraint and

clarity in the contrapuntal themes of the Fughetta after the liberty of expression in the first section

and the intimacy in the second section are comparable with neoclassical features and the style of

Hindemith. However, one can encounter only external features of Neoclassicism in this work, in

which Vasilenko employed individual elements of the contrapuntal style by showing an eclectic

approach in his highly individual compositional outcome. 313 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1948), 85. Taneev’s plans

for Bach’s fugues may be seen in: Sergei Taneev, Iz nauchno-pedagogicheskogo naslediia [From the

Scientific and Educational Legacy], ed. Fedor Arzamanov and Luidmila Korabel’nikova (Moscow:

Sovetskii kompozitor, 1967), 155-163.

205

a completely new theme Energico in E minor, the key that became predominant in

the development section of Vasilenko’s sonata, were the inimitable features of an

instrumental sonata of the early twentieth century inspired by Taneev’s ideas.

5.5 The Influence of the French Impressionists on Vasilenko’s language

Vasilenko admitted that he experienced a period of fascination with French

Impressionism, which marked a number of his works.314 He denied the value of a

thorough replication of compositional systems and traditions for the practical work

of a composer by giving special merit to the combination of subconscious,

picturesque and intellectual impulses.

[…] I ordered a number of scores of Debussy and Ravel from abroad, which I

thoroughly studied. They suggested an idea of creating a new orchestral palette. I

did not depart from the score of ‘Pelléas et Mélisande’ day and night. I was bored

with the previous colouring. I found disgusting the orchestral canvases with

predictable, obvious and firm clichés. I was also fed up with the scores of Glazunov:

everything was provided and secured, everything sounded well, but without

romanticism, flight of thought and audacity. At first, I started to strive for a higher

and broader individualisation of particular instruments, then mixtures, in other

words, combinations of instruments of different instrumental families. This field has

endless combinations, distant from any clichés. [...] New sounds were created. The

old major principle of filling in the middle register in order to gain a good and firm

314 Among them are symphonic poems Sad smerti [The Garden of Death] op. 12, 1907-08, and Polet

ved’m [The Flight of the Witches] op. 15, 1908-09, and a symphonic suite V solnechnykh luchakh [In

the Rays of the Sun] op. 17, 1911.

206

sound palette was thrown away. I got rid of this principle ones and for all. […]315

Certainly, this freedom of expression and operation with the variety of

compositional resources came after a thorough scholastic study. This knowledge

gave Vasilenko independence of thought and practical consciousness, which

consequently boosted his sensory stimuli and encouraged innovative approaches.

Debussy expressed analogous ideas insisting that a theory does not have value, but

the inner hearing, impulse and the feeling of contentment are the most important.

‘There is no such thing as theory. If something pleases the ear then that’s all that

matters.’316

The viola sonata of Vasilenko instantiates similar qualities. It becomes

apparent that though it does not have any plot or a corresponding title apart from a

plain phrase ‘Sonata for Viola and Piano’, it does provoke impetuous images and

sparks emotions. The broad usage of vocal elements with a strong focus on a linear

development, harmonic unpredictability, contrasting textural material and a wide

range of specific words and phrases indicating changes of dynamics, articulation and

musical moods are conducive to the formation of this denotation. The score has an

exclusive selection of Italian terms as amoroso, impetuoso, energico, piangendo,

affrettando, amorevole, disperato, furioso in addition to the standard ones of

calando, dolce, dolento, agitato, marcato and others. As a result, this music gains

narrative qualities and conjures up immaterial sensations despite its opposing

stylistic origins and associations. The elimination of positivism in favour of

intuition, subconscious and psychological perceptions, a highly unorthodox narrative


204-205. 316 Quoted in Marguerite Long, At the Piano with Debussy (London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1972), 18.

207

style and distinctive rhythmic and harmonic experimentations united the languages

of Vasilenko and the French Impressionists, but their inspirations came from

different cultural grounds.

5.6 Symbolism

Like Debussy, Vasilenko was greatly influenced by the individualism of the

Symbolist movement, which flourished in their native countries, France and Russia,

at the turn of the twentieth century, though Symbolism took a special course of

development in Russia. It transformed into the Silver Age aesthetic, a term referring

to the unification of a number of artistic movements, including Symbolism and

Futurism, in the first two decades of the twentieth century.317 Dissatisfaction with

the realistic portrayal of life embraced by poets and writers in the nineteenth century

stimulated a wave of creativity and rebellion against traditional values

unprecedented in the cultural history of Russia. This period was comprised of cross-

fertilised literature, music, the visual arts, theatre and philosophy with a strong

emphasis on Russian spiritual distinctiveness that influenced a whole generation of

artists, writers and musicians, including Vasilenko. In the manuscript of an article

dated 18 March 1947, Anatolii Aleksandrov gave a fair evaluation of the stylistic

influences that made an impact on his teacher.

[…] The orchestral style of the French Impressionists was consonant with the

individuality of Vasilenko with its colourful sound palette and harmonic

317 Further reference in: 1. John E. Bowlt, Moscow and St. Petersburg in Russia’s Silver Age: 1900-

1920 (London: Thames & Hudson, 2008). 2. Francis Maes, A History of Russian Music. From

Kamarinskaya to Babi Yar (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2006), 196-

235.

208

exquisiteness. However, one should not exaggerate: the French school only partly

influenced the Russian composer; he took its values and as it were translated into

Russian language. […]318

Vasilenko’s intellectual ability merged with his natural aptitude for the

intuitive and imaginative based on Russian mysticism that derived not only from the

literature and arts of the epoch, but also from the irrational perception of the Russian

soul drawn from national customs, fairy tales and folk art that traditionally linked

human life and the Russian landscape and deified the act of creation. In an

unpublished article Vasilenko emphasised this special link whilst describing his

fascination with Russian Symbolist poets Briusov, Gorodetskii and Blok, which

resulted in a series of romances op. 11-21 that Vasilenko composed during 1904-

1913.

[…] In these texts I felt the possibility of depicting clearly the ideal correspondence

between the soul of nature and the psychology of a human being. I constantly feel

that the water-sprites, forest spirits, marsh priests and moon maidens319 are the

embodiment of the inner forces of nature, which ought to reflect human

relationships. Perhaps, this is a representation of romanticism, but only through

these images I came closer to the depiction of human passions. […]320

This search for the soul became the distinctive feature of Russian culture,

which had special resonance in the picturesque and narrative rhetoric typical of

318 Anatolii Aleksandrov, K 75-letiiu Sergeia Nikiforovicha Vasilenko [On the 75 Anniversary of Sergei

Nikiforovich Vasilenko]. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 320, p. 1. 319 These spirits and gods of nature were traditional subjects of Russian tales and folk customs often

derived from the pagan times before Christianity, which were naturally absorbed into Russian

culture. 320 Sergei Vasilenko, Vokal’nye proizvedeniia. Housed in GDMC, fund 36, op. 1, ed. khr. 7, pp. 2-3.

209

Russian composers of the time.321 Vasilenko managed to embody the fluctuations

and unsteadiness of his epoch showing individualism, nonconformity and creativity

in his harmonic and sound palette and in the importance of narrative and visual

associations. These features were very valuable for the composer as he further

refined them in his viola pieces of the early 1950s, of which more in the second

chapter.

5.7 The impact of colour in Vasilenko’s musical perception

The variety of thematic material with the range of harmonic and melodic idioms

creates not only a certain imaginative display of unpredictable sensations but also

the mingling of multi-coloured lights and shades in the sonata. Vasilenko specified

that a colour palette and consequently visual images were very important for his

artistic perception of a work. Visual art depicted through music and, vice versa,

paintings that engendered feelings, emotions and musical images were the only

compositions and examples of fine art that Vasilenko fully appreciated and

cherished. Moreover, he emphasized his association of colours with musicical

tones/pitches and modes. This allows one to conclude that the distinctiveness of a

musical colour palette provided certain guidance in his choice of tonal plans,

interruptions and modulations.

[…] I was never taught how to draw. I could never reproduce even a simple

drawing. However, I have always showed great interest in the world of colours,

light and shadows alongside my fascination by music. The connection between

321 Further reference in: 1. Cherry Gilchrist, The Soul of Russia. Magical Traditions in an Enchanted

Landscape (Edinburgh: Floris Books, 2008), 15-50. 2. Tatiana Levaia, Russkaia muzyka nachala XX

veka v khudozhestvennom kontekste epokhi (Moscow: Muzyka, 1991), 15-72.

210

music and painting became more and more obvious to me year by year. For me,

some keys corresponded to certain colours: F major to bright yellow, E flat major to

blue, B minor to pale green and so on. The general background of a music

composition, so called orchestral pedalling, matched the background of a picture,

whether light, bright or gloomy. The melodic lines sometimes illustrated certain

colourful stripes or patches. In my view, music and painting do amalgamate. I

perceive painting through music. […]322

This integration of non-musical elements, such as the impressions perceived

by the eye, into a musical work and attempts at synthesis with the visual arts were

common at the turn of the twentieth century for European and Russian composers,

including Debussy and Rimskii-Korsakov.323 Skriabin developed a whole system of

colours based on the circle of fifths, in which he did not differentiate minor and

major modes unlike Vasilenko, who distinguished modes according to a certain

colour scheme. Skriabin integrated his system into composing his music324 and went

further in developing his unrealized work Misterium with a synthesis of dance,

music and light that was planned to be performed for a week in the Himalayas.

322 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1948), 170-171. 323 Further reference in: 1. Paul Roberts, Claude Debussy (New York: Phaidon Press, 2010), 129-148.

2. Leon Botstein, “Beyond the Illusions of Realism: Painting and Debussy’s Break with Tradition,” in

Debussy and His World, ed. Jane F. Fulcher (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2001), 141-179.

3. Irina Vanechkina, Bulat Galeev, “Tsvetnoi slukh v tvorchestve Nikolaia Andreevicha Rimskogo-

Korsakova [Colour Hearing in the Creative Works of N.A. Rimskii-Korsakov],” Synaesthesia: Research

Institute ‘Prometheus’ (Russia, Kazan), http://synesthesia.prometheus.kai.ru/index.html (accessed

May 17, 2012). 4. Nikolai Rimskii-Korsakov, Perepiska s Vasiliem V. Iastrebtsevym i Vladimirom I.

Bel’skim [Correspondence with Vasilii V. Iastrebtsev and Vladimir I. Bel’skii], ed. Liudmila Barsova

(St. Petersburg: Mezhdunarodnaia assotsiatsiia ‘Russkaia Kul’tura’, 2004), 260, 272. 324 The best example is the symphonic work Prometheus [The Poem of Fire], op. 60, 1910, written

for piano, orchestra, optional choir and clavier à lumières [a colour organ], invented by Preston

Millar.

http://synesthesia.prometheus.kai.ru/index.html

211

Vasilenko respected Skriabin and knew him very well and, though he could

comprehend his associations of music and colour, he was quite sceptical about

Skriabin’s fantasy-projects and philosophical conceptions.325

At the same time, Vasilenko valued the idea that an artist should envisage

and strive towards the unknown and harmonious in order to bring true creativity to

the fore. Nevertheless, it would be impractical to assume that Vasilenko was

constantly concerned with every reiteration of colour when a new tonal or harmonic

centre recurred. He did not leave examples of a whole spectrum of colours and

corresponding keys, which allows one to suppose that his interest in colour was just

an extra tool in his intuitive artistic attempt to evoke experience of one sense by an

appeal to another. ‘Many times I connected colour and sound in my artistic

imagination and, therefore, I can comprehend the association of light and sound.’326

Iurii Fortunatov was of the opinion that colour, timbre and sonority took on

increasing importance in Vasilenko’s language.

[…] The timbre guided the composer’s thoughts giving him clues to the best

choices of images and even the melodic structures of voices. [...] The development

of an idea forms the chain of feelings: timbre, register and theme. During the

process of work, a theme gains its shape only after the composer has heard certain

timbres in his inner ear. […]327

Vasilenko’s visual perception was very important for him and correlated with his

325 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1948), 118-122. 326 Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1948), 121. 327 Iurii Fortunatov, ‘Sergei Vasilenko’, in Teodor Miuller (ed.), Vydaiushchiesia deiateli teoretiko-

kompozitorskogo fakul’teta Moskovskoi Konservatorii [Prominent Musicologists of the Music

Theory-Composition Faculty of the Moscow Conservatoire] (Moscow: Muzyka, 1966), 14–15.

212

aural and emotional sensitivity.

5.8 Conclusion. Performance issues

It is the reading and comprehension of a musical score that dictates a particular

instrumental application and binds together the musical ideas of a composer with

one’s own interpretation. Attention to this is essential for making one’s performance

a truly unique experience for an audience. A performer should always strive to

achieve individuality in his/her performance but also needs to ensure that his/her

interpretation reflects the distinctive spirit of a composer’s writing and epoch and

brings out the full potential of a musical work.

One may conclude that the distinguishing feature of Vasilenko’s writing for

the viola was his proficiency and inventiveness of stylistic approaches in his

compositional language. His knowledge and intellectual discernment of the epoch

and style of a musical genre fused with intuitive and subconscious impulses, with a

strong focus on narrative and visual associations deeply rooted in Russian culture

and traditions. It is likely that the unconventional and liberal thought of the Silver

Age were contributing factors to his writing of solo compositions for such an

unusual solo instrument as the viola. In addition, its deep velvety timbre became a

suitable bearer of symbolic ideas preoccupied with the figurative world of mysticism

and the images or voices of death, which perhaps originate in Berlioz’s Harold in

Italy.328 The understanding of this distinctive symbolic and imaginative

328 These symbolic images were developed in many viola works written by Russian composers,

including the sonatas for viola and piano by Sergei Vasilenko, Nikolai Roslavets, Grigorii Frid and

Dmitrii Shostakovich as well as Al’fred Shnitke’s [Alfred Schnittke’s] Viola Concerto. For a detailed

discussion of Vasilenko’s sonata for viola and piano see the fourth chapter.

213

compositional approach is essential for the interpretation of Vasilenko’s musical

creativity by contemporary performers.

The predominance of major orchestral and vocal works in Vasilenko’s

compositional writing of the pre-revolutionary period was conducive to the variety

and changeability of musical articulation, and the instrumental density and technical

intensity in his compositions for viola and piano that he started to compose after

1917.329 These compositions illustrate the composer’s colourful approach to the

timbre, phrasing, temperament and emotive aspects that depended on the genre of a

work. For this reason, a player should execute the instrumental challenges offered by

the composer bringing the musicality and inventiveness of his musical expression to

the foreground, in which one’s technical capacity serves the stylistic and

temperamental needs of a particular composition.

Vasilenko’s unusual synthesis of counterpoint and song elements, discussed

above, engenders different objectives for a violist. The lyricism and elegance of

Vasilenko’s vocal and song-type themes effectively replicate a human voice with its

conversational tone of expression, which naturally requires a warm intimate

colouring of sound embellished with an expressive vibrato. The linear activity of

Vasilenko’s contrapuntal themes brings to the fore the clarity of articulation and the

interrelation of secular and sacred aspects in his early music arrangements, in which

a delicate balance of instruments that are treated as equal partners in a musical

dialogue is of no less importance.

The findings of peak points in a particular composition of Vasilenko would

shape the musical and dynamic charisma and the feel of the structure as a whole. 329 The list of compositions is given in Appendix 2.

214

This is important in Vasilenko’s music as he followed an inventive approach to

musical structure, in which the clarity in the display of such architectural elements

as motif, musical phrase and theme depended not only on the composer’s knowledge

of musical forms but also on his inner hearing of a particular register and timbre that

shaped his musical images and melodic structures. At the same time, Vasilenko’s

individual approach to musical forms within his compositions demonstrated inner

logic and organisation that most certainly derived from Taneev.330 This orderliness

helps a performer to orientate themselves within the larger structural units of a

composition. Vasilenko’s rhythmic irregularity and impulsiveness were largely

influenced by oriental melodies and asymmetrical phrase structures formed by the

polysyllabic words of the Russian language characteristic of vocal music discussed

in subsections above. A perceptive attention of a performer to the changes of rhythm

and metre within structural units would expose the individuality of Vasilenko’s

phrasing and the peculiarities of his agogics that determine the use of bow and the

eloquence of the left hand technique. Listening acutely to the sound resonance and

the quality of tone that reflect the intonation in focus and its expressiveness is

especially important due to the unpredictability of Vasilenko’s harmonic language

that was inspired by the French Impressionists, the modern trends of the time and

the colourful approach to the timbre quality and sound colour.

The words of the famous Russian pianist and pedagogue Genrikh Neigauz

should assist one in comprehension and interpretation of Vasilenko’s music:

[…] At first one has to search for an image and then for physical/technical

sensations. […] In order to become a fine artist, one has to imagine something that

330 The influence of Taneev on Vasilenko has been discussed further in the third and fifth chapters.

215

does not exist. […] Everything is important in a fine musical work. Think about

small nuances. They are very important. Do not do anything against the author and

remember the words of Lev Tolstoi that in art ‘just a little’ is important. […] Do not

think about yourself when you perform but about the music and the composer.

[…]331

Vasilenko kept his ties with tradition and the musical knowledge and skills

that he was taught at the Moscow Conservatoire but strove for musical individuality,

new ideas and greater efficiency. He proficiently implemented many diverse stylistic

attributes in his music, enhanced his compositions with virtuosic instrumental

techniques, broadened the sonorous qualities of the instrument comparable to

orchestral colouring and thus, explored the previously unexplored potential of the

viola in a solo repertoire. The understanding and skilful execution of these aspects

by performers would enrich one’s performance and preserve Vasilenko’s musical

legacy for future generations.

5.9 Vasilenko’s legacy

Detailed analysis of Vasilenko’s viola compositions has revealed that his

compositional style was exquisitely crafted, sophisticated and very distinctive.

Vasilenko admitted that he inherited his musical roots primarily from the traditions

of the Russian national composers of the second half of the nineteenth and the turn

of the twentieth centuries, especially from Taneev, Tchaikovskii and Rimskii-

331 Elena Rikhter, “V 29 klasse [In the Classroom 29],” in Genrikh Neigauz. Vospominaniia. Pis’ma.

Materialy [Heinrich Neuhaus. Memoirs. Letters. Materials], ed. Elena Rikhter (Moscow: Imidzh,

1992), 368, 370, 375-376.

216

Korsakov332 who recognised and appreciated the vividness of his compositional

talents. The words of the famous Russian historian, Vasilii Kliuchevskii, addressed

to the young composer in the early 1900s reveal the close bond between Sergei

Vasilenko and the Russian legacy:

[…] You do understand Russian music in depth. Do not turn towards the West or

East. Develop Russian music as it is an inexhaustible treasure-trove; besides, this

field will never disappoint your expectations. Our great Russian composers have

drawn only a fraction from this treasure-house. […]333

While the Russian origins were the inspirational source of Vasilenko’s

musical resourcefulness and being, his intellect and erudition won him recognition

among his contemporaries. Some critics called him ‘a profound analyst’334 for his

comprehension of Russian music along with the works of Wagner, French

Impressionists and other composers. Vasilenko was well acquainted with the

innovations of Igor Stravinskii335 and Vladimir Rebikov and was not afraid of

332 Further reference in: 1. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, My Musical Life, ed. Carl Van Vechten and

trans. Judah H. Joffe (London: Eulenburg Books, 1974), 379. 2. Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia.

Pervonachal’nyi variant. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 410, pp. 53-76, 77-79. 333 Quoted in Sergei Vasilenko, Stranitsy vospominanii (Moscow-Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1948), 162. 334 Evgenii Braudo, “Sorokapiatiletie tvorcheskoi deiatel’nosti zasluzhennogo deiatelia iskusstv S.N.

Vasilenko [The 45 Anniversary of the Creative Activities of the Merited Arts Worker S.N. Vasilenko].”

In Stat’i o Vasilenko, Gliere, Gnesine, Ippolitove-Ivanove, Prokof’eve, Spendiarove [Articles About

Vasilenko, Glier, Gnesin, Ippolitov-Ivanov, Prokofiev and Spendiarov]. Housed in RGALI, fund 2024

(Braudo, Evgenii Maksimovich), op. 1, ed. khr. 37, p. 18. 335 The premiere of Vasilenko’s Flight of the Witches op. 15 overshadowed the performance of the

Fireworks op. 4 by Stravinskii that took place in St Petersburg on 9 January 1910. However,

Vasilenko left encouraging comments about the young composer describing him as ‘a very nice and

highly cultural fellow and an enthusiast of orchestration’, and ‘a seeker of new paths and

unexpected sonorities’. Further reference in: 1. Sergei Vasilenko, Vospominaniia, ed. Tamara

Livanova (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1979), 251. 2. Richard Taruskin, Stravinsky and the Russian

217

mentioning their names and showing respect for their originality even in 1948, the

year of the Zhdanov decree, when those artists who failed to comply with the Party

cultural policy could jeopardize their careers and lives.336 Often his inquisitiveness

and zest of mind led him to pursue and adapt different stylistic elements from

Baroque and Neoclassicism to a Romantic idiom. He unpretentiously grasped the

Silver Age aesthetic with its mysticism, symbolic approach and visual images. Yet

he did so without any favouritism or fanaticism and distanced himself from any

rigorous duplication of either fashionable aesthetics or radicalism. Due to this fact,

some left-wing supporters of the Russian Avant-garde movement were rather ironic

about Vasilenko’s compositional talents.337

Traditions: a Biography of the Works Through Mavra (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), vol. 1,

416-418. 336 Sergei Vasilenko, Moe vystuplenie na pervom plenume. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr.

1536, p. 9. This plenum of the Composers’ Union of the USSR took place in April 1948. Vasilenko did

not name any names of his colleagues that were attacked as formalists in the Zhdanov decree, but

instead focused his speech on the importance of keeping the links with the Russian tradition of

which more below. He opposed this idea with Arnold Schoenberg by quoting his article from a

German music magazine Moderne Musik [Modern Music] dated 1912, in which Schoenberg

proclaimed the discontinuity with the traditional rules of harmony and polyphony and with the

concept that music should express feelings. Naturally, this manifesto of Schoenberg contradicted

completely with Vasilenko’s artistic standpoint. 337 Nikolai Miaskovskii was extremely committed to the Avant-garde movement and its

revolutionary innovations. Therefore, he was excessively acerbic about the significance of Vasilenko

among other Russian composers of his generation. In November 1912, the music magazine ‘Muzyka’

[Music] published an article about the leading composers of the time written by Miaskovskii, in

which Vasilenko was incidentally listed among Skriabin, Rakhmaninov and Medtner. In a letter dated

12 November 1912 to Vladimir Derzhanovskii, the editor of the magazine, Miaskovskii anxiously

demanded an official statement from the magazine to testify that it was a misprint. ‘It would be not

only good but essential to exclude the name of Vasilenko. Otherwise, one must also add the names

of Glier, Grechaninov and as many other composers as one may wish to include.’ Nikolai

218

Indeed, the analysis of Vasilenko’s viola compositions reveals that he was

often interested in the beauty of the external characteristics of different musical

styles rather than in the principles of their aesthetics and depths of their

philosophies. Vasilenko demonstrated the best examples of this approach in the

sonata with its extraordinary synthesis of strict contrapuntal elements of

Neoclassicism with colourful oriental idioms and unreserved emotions of

Romanticism, as well as in his stylisation of the Baroque style in the Zodiakus suite

and the lute pieces enriched with the instrumental advantages and inventions of the

twentieth century. In an unpublished speech at the first plenum of the Composer’s

Union in 1948, Vasilenko voiced the principles of composing that he regarded

essential for himself and for a comprehensive tuition of the young generation.

[…] The aims of the supervisors of our young composers are primarily the

following:

1. To develop a brilliant technique of composing through an extensive and in-

depth study of works of the great masters, both Russian and of the West.

2. To strive towards the development of students’ own musical identity without

any imitation of others.

3. To emphasise to the young people the necessity of a thorough analysis of a

musical idea and a theme in terms of the musical sensitivity and significance of

these themes.

4. The Russian subject and the Russian style have to be in the foreground. The

young people at the Conservatoire are completely separated from Russian

music. When I was a student at the Moscow Conservatoire, we had a fantastic

enthusiast of Russian music, a teacher of the history of church music, Miaskovskii, Sobranie materialov v dvukh tomakh (Moscow: Muzyka, 1964), vol. 2, 973. Glier taught

Miaskovskii, but this did not protect him from his former student’s sarcasm.

219

Smolenskii. The point is not in studying church singing, perhaps we do not need

it, but by studying the ancient kriuki notation Smolenskii made us study in

depth and thus instilled our love for Russian song. […] There was a rule at the

pre-Revolutionary Moscow Conservatoire: in the first year of the ‘free

composition’ course one had to compose an overture on Russian themes given

by a Professor. Perhaps a Russian subject was not necessarily of any practical

use to a student in his/her future, but, nevertheless, he/she absorbed Russian

song in practice. Only in this way a composer will have access to the heart of

the Russian people!

5. At the time of the completion of Conservatoire studies, former students should

not lose the connection with their teachers. I continued a warm friendship with

Taneev and Ippolitov-Ivanov until their death and they invariably directed me in

my undertakings.338

Today, one may interpret these words of the seventy-six year old composer

as his overlooked legacy, in which he emphasised the importance of the succession

of generations. He stressed that only a profound musical knowledge of past and

present achievements would inspire one’s own creativity and, thus, bring

compositional wisdom.

Anatolii Aleksandrov justly ranked Vasilenko among his contemporaries:

[…] Vasilenko is a model of a composer, who steadily and tirelessly pursued his

beliefs. The dominant rulers of the Moscow musical circles replaced one another,

whilst Sergei Nikiforovich kept following and enhancing his own line. […]339

338 Sergei Vasilenko, Moe vystuplenie na pervom plenume. Housed in GNMCMC, fund 52, ed. khr.

1536, pp. 9-11. 339 Anatolii Aleksandrov, K 75-letiiu S.N. Vasilenko. Housed in RGALI, fund 2579, op. 1, ed. khr. 320,

p. 1. The underlined word ‘his’ in this quotation stands as in the manuscript.

220

Indeed, political systems and their leaders come and go, but the cultural and

historical legacy of Russia, to which Vasilenko was faithful throughout his life,

remains the most valuable possession of its people, because it maintains their

intellectual national identity of today and, thus, forms a precious part of world

heritage for its future generations. The recent access to unpublished documents and

collections in Russian libraries and archives help one to uncover the unknown of the

Soviet past and bring back to light and share the best achievements of its

representatives. The findings about Sergei Vasilenko and his music are an important

step in this process that enriches one’s knowledge of this epoch and its distinctive

musical legacy.

Certainly, the scope of this thesis is limited to the research and discussion of

only a limited proportion of Vasilenko’s musical heritage focusing primarily on his

compositions written for the viola. His works for other instruments still require

further research. However, the most important accomplishment of the research work

that has been undertaken by the author of this thesis is not only the academic

findings about Vasilenko as a musician and public figure but the discovery of his

unknown and forgotten viola compositions, which undoubtedly enriched the concert

viola repertoire. The recent performances, publications, research presentations and

the recording of these works by the author of this thesis has initiated the consequent

revival of interest from general audiences and professionals in Vasilenko both as a

man and a composer, who managed to preserve and enhance his pre-revolutionary

musical roots despite the ideological and stylistic constraints of the Soviet epoch.

Between Tradition and Modernity Sergei Vasilenko and His … · 2014-03-06 · Between Tradition...

Documents

Transcript of Between Tradition and Modernity Sergei Vasilenko and His … · 2014-03-06 · Between Tradition...